Willamette Law Online

(15 summaries)

Matt Dyal

United States Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Florida v. JardinesCriminal Procedure: The “use of trained police dogs to investigate [a] home and its immediate surroundings is a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”(03-26-2013)
McCutcheon v. Federal Election CommissionFirst Amendment: Whether the aggregate individual political contribution limit imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is an unconstitutional burden on would-be contributors’ First Amendment rights.(02-19-2013)
Messerschmidt v. MillenderCriminal Procedure: Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit when they have a reasonable belief that the scope of a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate was supported by probable cause.(02-22-2012)
Messerschmidt v. MillenderCriminal Procedure: Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit when they have a reasonable belief that the scope of a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate was supported by probable cause.(02-22-2012)
United States v. JonesCriminal Procedure: The Government conducted a 4th Amendment search when it physically occupied private property by installing a GPS device on a vehicle and used that device to monitor the vehicle's movements.(01-23-2012)
Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLCCivil Procedure: Federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over private suits arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.(01-18-2012)
Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. ValladolidAdministrative Law: To receive compensation under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, an employee need not have been injured while physically on the Outer Continental Shelf, but instead must establish a substantial nexus between his injury and his employer’s operations on the Outer Continental Shelf.(01-11-2012)
Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.Administrative Law: Whether the Federal Communications Commission's current indecency-enforcement regime violates the First or Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.(01-09-2012)
Messerschmidt v. MillenderCriminal Procedure: 1. Whether police officers are entitled to qualified immunity when they obtained a facially valid warrant but failed to find that for which they were searching. 2. Whether the [italics]Malley/Leon[/italics] standards for excluding evidence in a criminal proceeding or imposing civil liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983 should be reconsidered or clarified.(12-05-2011)
U.S. v. JonesCriminal Procedure: Whether the government violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights by attaching a GPS tracking device to his vehicle and monitoring his movements on public streets without a valid warrant and without his consent.(11-08-2011)
Gonzalez v. ThalerHabeas Corpus: Whether the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations for an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be calculated based on “the date on which the judgment became final” as held by the 8th Circuit or “the expiration of the time for seeking such review” as held by the 5th Circuit.(11-02-2011)
Greene v. FisherHabeas Corpus: Whether a Supreme Court decision announced after a state intermediate court's decision, but before a state supreme court’s denial of discretionary review qualifies as “clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).(10-11-2011)

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. HerrmannWater Rights: (1) Whether Congress’ ratification of an interstate compact constitutes “expressly stated” or “unmistakably clear” congressional intent to immunize the relevant state laws from dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny; and (2) whether the compact preempts state laws that limit other signatories’ access to the water in question.(01-04-2013)
Florida v. JardinesCriminal Procedure: Whether a trained narcotics detection dog's sniff at a suspected grow house's front door is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause.(01-06-2012)
Astrue v. CapatoAdministrative Law: Whether a child conceived after his biological father's death and prohibited by state intestacy law from inheriting personal property is nonetheless eligible for child survivor benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.(11-14-2011)