Willamette Law Online

(14 summaries)

Kelly Huedepohl

United States Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Blueford v. ArkansasCriminal Procedure: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a second trial on all charges where the first trial ended in a mistrial, even where the jury reported during the course of its deliberations that it was unanimous against guilt on some of the original charges.(05-24-2012)
Vasquez v. United StatesEvidence: Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.(04-02-2012)
Vartelas v. HolderImmigration: Application of IIRIRA § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) to convictions entered prior to the passage of IIRIRA imposes a new disability in respect to past events and violates the presumption against the retroactive application of laws in the absence of clear Congressional intent. Additionally, the immigration law in place at the time of conviction is the law that governs the impact of that conviction.(03-28-2012)
Lafler v. CooperPost-Conviction Relief: The Sixth Amendment's protections extend to plea bargains, and a full and fair trial does not remedy a pretrial violation, even where the trial itself was not prejudiced by the error.(03-21-2012)
Vasquez v. United StatesEvidence: Whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct standard for harmless error review, and whether the standard applied by the Seventh Circuit violated Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.(03-21-2012)
Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp.Preemption: (The Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq., preempts defective design and failure to warn state law tort claims.)(02-29-2012)
Vartelas v. HolderImmigration: Whether INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(v) can be enforced against lawful permanent residents who, prior to the passage of IIRIRA in 1997, pleaded guilty to an offense identified in INA § 212(a)(2), 8 U.S.C section 1182(a)(2).(01-18-2012)
Minneci v. PollardConstitutional Law: Where state tort law remedies provide sufficient deterrence and compensation, an Eighth Amendment Bivens action will not be implied against employees of a privately operated federal prison.(01-10-2012)
Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLCCivil Procedure: Whether Congress divested federal district courts of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 with respect to private actions brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227.(11-28-2011)
Vasquez v. United StatesEvidence: Whether it is reversible error in a criminal case for a trial court to admit recordings of a conversation for the truth of the matter where the witness admits the point on which the government seeks to establish bias, where a logical inference is necessary to establish an inconsistent statement, and where the statements otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay.(11-28-2011)
Lafler v. CooperPost-Conviction Relief: Whether a defendant is entitled to federal habeas relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel provided objectively unreasonable advice that caused the defendant to reject a plea deal, and, if so, whether the appropriate remedy is a court order that the State either offer specific performance of the rejected deal or release the defendant from custody.(10-31-2011)

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Willis of Colorado Inc. v. TroicePreemption: Whether state law class actions suits are precluded under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) because a misrepresentation is “made in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security” where the representation asserts that an uncovered security is backed by safe, liquid, covered securities. (01-18-2013)
Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. BartlettPreemption: Whether federal law preempts state law design-defect claims against generic drug manufacturers.(11-30-2012)
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt.Property Law: Whether an "exactions taking" occurs under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution when the government actor does not compel dedication of any interest in the real property to the public use, and when the alleged exaction consists of imposition of a monetary obligation as a condition of permit issuance but the permit is never issued.(10-05-2012)