Heather Parker

United States Supreme Court (6 summaries)

Kansas v. Carr

The Eighth Amendment does not (1) require a court to instruct a jury engaged in capital sentencing that mitigating factors need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or (2) require separate hearings for multiple defendants in a capital sentencing case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Mullenix v. Luna

Whether an officer was entitled to qualified immunity when he shot and killed a driver to end a high-speed chase.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Qualified Immunity

Kingsley v. Hendrickson

Under a § 1983 claim, a pretrial detainee must show only that the force used against that detainee was “objectively unreasonable,” not that state actors “recklessly disregarded” detainee safety or “acted with reckless disregard” of constitutional rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Bruce v. Samuels

Whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), limits the percentage of a prisoners income that can be used to pay court fees to 20% of the prisoners total monthly income, or to 20% of the prisoners income for each case requiring court fee payments?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Kansas v. Nebraska et. al

Whether Nebraska violated 1943 Congressional agreement and 2003 settlement on the apportionment of waters of the Republican River between Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado and if so, what remedy is required.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Water Rights

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

When reviewing a district court’s analysis of factual matters made in advocation of a patent claim, a court must apply a “clear error” instead of a de novo standard.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (11 summaries)

Ross v. Blake

Whether the Fourth Circuit properly used a common law “special circumstances” exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Whether the dismissal of a lawsuit, due to failure of the party to comply with pre-suit requirements, can form the basis of an award for attorney’s fees?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Lockhart v. United States

Whether the federal sentencing enhancement under 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2) requires that a prior conviction involve a minor or ward.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Green v. Donahoe

Whether, in an employment discrimination claim brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the filing period for a constructive discharge claim begins to run (1) when an employee resigns or (2) at the time of the employer’s act that gave rise to the employee’s resignation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan

Whether in a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974, a fiduciary can recover an overpayment if the fiduciary did not identify a particular fund for the payment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore

Whether spousal guarantors have standing to bring a claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and whether the Federal Reserve Board can include spousal guarantors as “applicants” to avoid discrimination against married women.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

Mata v. Holder

Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in determining that it had no jurisdiction to review a petitioner's request that the Board of Immigration Appeals equitably toll a deadline on his motion to reopen due to ineffective assistance of counsel under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Toca v. Louisiana

(1) Whether the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama that states that a mandatory life sentence without parole for those under 18 years of age violates the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment applies retroactively, and (2) Whether a federal question is raised by a claim that a state court failed to find a Teague exception.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.

(1) Whether state issued license plates, and the messages on them, are government speech, and thus immune from viewpoint neutrality; and (2) whether Sons of Confederate Veterans license plates were discriminated against on the basis of viewpoint when the state rejected them, even though the confederacy was not portrayed negatively.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Michigan v. EPA; consolidated with Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA; National Mining Association v. EPA

Whether it was unreasonable for the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") refused to consider costs in deciding if it is "appropriate" to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

Whether it is a violation of Title VII for refusing to hire an applicant or for terminating an employee based on a religious practice that require accommodations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law