(12 summaries)
Wesley Garcia
United States Supreme Court
| Title | Excerpt | Filling Date |
|---|---|---|
| Millbrook v. United States | Tort Law: Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) the law enforcement proviso in 28 U.S.C. §2680(h) for intentional torts extends to officers’ acts or omissions arising within the scope of their duty and is not limited to conduct during an arrest, search, or seizure. | (03-27-2013) |
| FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. | Antitrust: Since Georgia has not clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed a policy in which hospital authorities can substantially lessen competition by acquiring additional hospitals, state-action immunity does not apply to the hospital authorities. | (02-19-2013) |
| Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak & Salazar v. Patchak | Standing: The United States waived sovereign immunity under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it took land in trust for tribal use, and the Quiet Title Act (QTA) does not provide an exception for a suit that does not seek title of the land. Further, because the Indian Reorganization Act addresses land use, Respondent’s claims are entitled to prudential standing because they are within the Act’s “zone of interest.” | (06-18-2012) |
| Holder v. Gutierrez | Administrative Law: The Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to reject imputation of parental residency is reasonable and entitled to [italics]Chevron[/italics] deference because it is “based on a permissible construction” of the statute. | (05-21-2012) |
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted
| Title | Excerpt | Filling Date |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Forest Service v. Pacific Rivers Council | Administrative Law: (1) Whether a plaintiff has Article III standing if it failed to establish a specific imminent threatened injury from its contact with the forest area affected by United States Forest Service proposals; (2) whether a plaintiff's claim is ripe if it can still object once it identified a specific injurious project; and (3) whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires the United States Forest Service to analyze all potential environmental effects as soon as reasonably possible. | (03-18-2013) |
| Walden v. Fiore | Civil Procedure: (1) Whether knowledge that Plaintiff has connections to the forum State constitute “express aiming” for specific personal jurisdiction; and (2) whether venue is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) when the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in a judicial district other than the forum state. | (03-04-2013) |
| Hillman v. Maretta | Preemption: Whether the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLIA) preempts Virginia’s omitted spouse statute that allows a third party to recover death benefits from the named beneficiary. | (01-11-2013) |
| Sebelius v. Cloer | Attorney Fees: Whether a person who untimely files a claim under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees when the claim was brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis. | (11-20-2012) |
| Millbrook v. United States | Tort Law: Whether 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b) and 2680(h) waive the sovereign immunity of the United States for intentional torts committed by prison guards who are acting within the scope of their employment but are not exercising authority to "execute searches, to seize evidence or to make arrests for violations of Federal law." | (09-25-2012) |
| FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. | Corporations: (1) Whether the Georgia legislature “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed [a] state policy to displace competition” when it vested powers to acquire and lease hospitals; if so (2) whether such policy is sufficient to validate anticompetitive conduct given minimal state involvement with a leased hospital. | (06-25-2012) |
9th Circuit Court of Appeals
| Title | Excerpt | Filling Date |
|---|---|---|
| Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa | Constitutional Law: A California city ordinance prohibiting disruptive public behavior at city council meetings is constitutionally overbroad and not severable when it fails to “limit proscribed activity to only actual disturbances” and instead includes a significant amount of “non-disruptive, protected speech.” | (05-03-2013) |
| Radcliffe_v._Experian Info. Solutions | Civil Law: An incentive award for class representatives conditioned on support of settlement makes the class representatives inadequate and creates a conflict of interest for class counsel between the class representatives and the class. | (04-22-2013) |