Willamette Law Online

(13 summaries)

James Meiers

United States Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
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
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)