Willamette Law Online

(27 summaries)

James Meiers

United States Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.Copyright: Under the language and purpose of the Copyright Act of 1976, contemporaneous transmission of broadcast television signals over the Internet are public performances whenever the signals are made available to the public.(06-25-2014)
Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. ArkisonBankruptcy Law: When hearing a Stern claim — certain "core" bankruptcy claims over which bankruptcy courts lack the power to grant final adjudications — bankruptcy courts may issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for district courts to review de novo.(06-09-2014)
Plumhoff v. RickardQualified Immunity: (1) A party may immediately appeal the denial of a summary judgment motion when it is based on a qualified immunity claim. (2) Qualified immunity applies to officials sued under § 1983 unless the claimant shows that the official violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.(05-27-2014)
Northwest, Inc. v. GinsbergPreemption: The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 preempts state common law provisions that expand the scope of the contract rights between airlines and air passengers.(04-02-2014)
Law v. SiegelBankruptcy Law: Bankruptcy courts may only disallow statutory exemptions if permitted by statute, and lack any statutory or inherent power to directly or indirectly disallow exemptions by contradicting specific statutes.(03-04-2014)
Kansas v. CheeverCriminal Procedure: The rule in Buchanan v. Kentucky that the state does not violate a defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination when it offers psychological expert testimony derived from the defendant’s statements during a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation for the limited purpose of rebutting a defendant’s “mental status” defense.(12-11-2013)
United States v. WoodsTax Law: The District Court had jurisdiction to decide whether a partnerships' lack of economic substance justified a valuation-misstatement penalty on the partners. (12-03-2013)
Salinas v. TexasCriminal Procedure: Noncustodial witnesses must verbally assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for it to have effect. Silence from a noncustodial witness does not imply that the witness asserts their privilege against self-incrimination even when the witness's silence is in reliance of their privilege against self-incrimination.(06-17-2013)
Tarrant Regional Water District v. HerrmannWater Rights: In the absence of express language creating cross-border rights to water located entirely within one state, the Red River compact does not preempt Oklahoma state water statutes from discriminating against out of state takers. The dormant Commerce Clause is not violated by Oklahoma's water statutes even though they have a discriminatory effect on the interstate commerce of water.(06-13-2013)
Trevino v. ThalerHabeas Corpus: The "good cause" exception recognized in Martinez v. Ryan applies if a state's procedural framework limits any meaningful opportunity to raise a claim on direct appeal that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.(05-28-2013)
Bowman v. Monsanto Co.Patents: The Patent Exhaustion Doctrine does not apply when the buyer reproduces the patented product. This includes "self-replicating products" where the item's intended use will create copies that have "non-replicating" uses.(05-13-2013)

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Bullard v. Hyde Park Savings BankBankruptcy Law: Whether a bankruptcy court's denial of a reorganization plan is a final order that may be appealed.(12-12-2014)
Brumfield v. CainCriminal Law: Whether (1) exclusive reliance on findings made during the penalty phase of a trial is an unreasonable determination of facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) for making an Atkins analysis; and (2) whether a state's denial of resources for post-trial evidentiary examinations denies a defendant the "opportunity to be heard" and to mount an adequate defense.(12-05-2014)
King v. BurwellAdministrative Law: Whether the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) creates rule-making authority permitting the IRS to grant tax credit subsidies to taxpayers who have purchased health insurance plans through health insurance exchanges established by either states or the federal government.(11-07-2014)
Coleman-Bey v. TollefsonCivil Procedure: Whether a dismissal that is not final, either due pending appellate review or because the time period to appeal has not run, is counted when determining if 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) applies to bar civil actions or appeals by prisoners who have already had three or more civil actions or appeals dismissed.(10-02-2014)
Ohio v. ClarkEvidence: (1) Whether individuals acting under mandatory reporting statutes become law enforcement agents under the Confrontation Clause; and (2) whether non-emergency hearsay statements from minor children to such individuals are testimonial statements under the Confrontation Clause.(10-02-2014)
Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.Preemption: Whether the Natural Gas Act, which defines Federal Energy Regulation Commission (“FERC”) jurisdiction over natural gas, preempts state antitrust claims arising from transactions beyond FERC jurisdiction.(07-01-2014)
United States v. JuneCivil Procedure: Whether equitable tolling of the Federal Tort Claims Act’s two-year time limit for administration claims with the appropriate agency is permitted.(06-30-2014)
Department of Transportation v. Association of American RailroadsConstitutional Law: Whether Amtrak is a private entity for purposes of determining whether Congress may delegate legislative authority to Amtrak, jointly with the Federal Railroad Administration, to create rules used in Surface Transportation Board adjudications.(06-23-2014)
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association; Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers AssociationAdministrative Law: Whether agencies must submit significant changes to a definitive agency interpretation to the public under the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.(06-16-2014)
T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of RoswellAdministrative Law: Whether, according to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a government may deny a telecommunication company's request "in writing" by sending a statement that contains no written explanation of its reasoning, or if there must be a written record for its reasoning and a written statement for the denial to qualify as being "in writing."(05-05-2014)
Yates v. United StatesEvidence: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1519 makes it an offense to destroy any tangible objects with the intent to impede an investigation or administrative matter, or whether the statute is limited to tangible objects related to records or documents.(04-28-2014)
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., et al.Patents: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in reviewing district court factual findings of construction of patent claims de novo and Rule 52(a) standard of review accepting findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous applies to construction of patent claims.(03-31-2014)
United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. Tax Law: Whether severance payments made to involuntarily terminated employees are taxable as wages under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.(10-01-2013)
Paroline v. United StatesCriminal Law: Whether the "proximate result" language of 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(3)(F) requires the government or victim to establish some, if any, "causal relationship or nexus between defendant's conduct and victim's harm or damages" in order to recover restitution.(06-27-2013)
Mayorkas v. Cuellar de OsorioImmigration: (1) Whether the Child Status Protection Act ("CSPA") grants “automatic conversion and priority date retention” to allow applicants who were derivative recipients of visas but "aged out" before the visas were granted, and now apply as adults, to apply using the original filing date of their parents' visa applications; And (2) whether the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") exceeded its authority when it interpreted CSPA was ambiguous and narrowly limited "automatic conversion."(06-24-2013)
National Labor Relations Board v. CanningConstitutional Law: "(1) Whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised during a recess that occurs within a session of the Senate, or is instead limited to recesses that occur between enumerated sessions of the Senate, and (2) whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess."(06-24-2013)