Willamette Law Online

(15 summaries)

Noah Gordon

United States Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.Civil Procedure: Providing that the elements of issue preclusion are met, if the usage adjudicated by the administrative agency are materially the same as the usage adjudicated by the district court, issue preclusion should apply.(03-24-2015)
Direct Marketing Association v. BrohlTax Law: The Tax Injunction Act does not bar suits in federal district courts where petitioners seek to enjoin enforcement of notice and reporting requirements, which is different than assessment, collection, or levy of taxes.(03-03-2015)
Holt v.HobbsFirst Amendment: RLUIPA does not allow a Department of Corrections to enforce a policy that prohibits an inmate from growing a half inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.(01-20-2015)
Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home LoansCivil Procedure: Under the Truth In Lending Act a borrower only needs to give written notice to his lender within three years when the borrower chooses to rescind a loan; the borrower does not need to file a lawsuit.(01-13-2015)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. OwensCivil Procedure: A defendant's notice of removal only needs to include a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy is more than the jurisdictional threshold; it does not need to contain evidentiary submissions.(12-15-2014)
Harris v. QuinnConstitutional Law: The First Amendment prohibits collecting an agency fee from non-public employees who do not support or wish to join a union.(06-30-2014)
Fifth Third Bancorp v. DudenhoefferCorporations: There is no "presumption of prudence" for an Employee Stock Ownership Plan fiduciary; they are subject only to the duty of prudence that applies to all ERISA fiduciaries in general, with the exception of the diversification requirement.(06-25-2014)
Loughrin v. United StatesCriminal Law: 18 U.S.C. §1344(2) does not require the government to prove that a defendant intended to defraud a financial institution.(06-23-2014)
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.Patents: A patent’s indefiniteness renders it invalid if its claims fail to inform skilled artisans about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.(06-02-2014)
Martinez v. IllinoisCriminal Procedure: Jeopardy attaches when a jury is empanelled and sworn, thus a not-guilty verdict cannot be appealed without subjecting a defendant to double jeopardy.(05-27-2014)
Octane Fitness, LLC. v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.Patents: The Brooks Furniture framework is unduly rigid and inconsistent with the statutory text of 35 U.S.C. § 285.(04-29-2014)

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Kansas v. GleasonSentencing: Whether a capital-sentencing jury is required by the Eighth Amendment to be affirmatively instructed, as the Kansas Supreme Court held, that mitigating circumstances need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or if the Eight Amendment is satisfied by merely providing instructions that make clear that every juror must weigh and assess mitigating circumstances.(03-30-2015)
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Patents: Whether it was error for the Federal Circuit to hold that it is a defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) that a defendant thought a patent was invalid.(12-05-2014)
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc.Constitutional Law: Whether Medicaid providers have a right to enforce 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) under the Supremacy Clause where Congress did not give that right. (10-02-2014)
Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation Inc.Tax Law: Whether a state commits discrimination when it requires industrial and commercial businesses, including rail carriers, to pay sales-and-use-tax, but exempts rail carriers’ competitors from the tax, and whether other aspects of the state’s taxation should be considered in addition to the tax provision challenged.(07-01-2014)