Willamette Law Online

(21 summaries)

Joseph Miller

United States Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.Employment Law: Under Section VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a pregnant worker pursuing a claim that an employer is in violation of the Act through disparate treatment can establish a prima facie case, under the analysis in McDonald Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792., by showing she is a member of a protected class, she requested accommodation, the employer did not provide accommodation, and the employer accommodated others “similar in their ability to work.”(03-25-2015)
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn.Administrative Law: Under the Federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA), a federal agency is not required to engage in notice and comment procedures when amending and existing interpretive rule.(03-09-2015)
Dept. of Homeland Security v. MacLeanEmployment Law: Disclosure of sensitive security information to the media prohibited by a promulgated federal regulation is not a disclosure prohibited by law under the whistleblower protections of 5 U.S.C. §2302(b)(8)(A). (01-21-2015)
Christeson v. RoperHabeas Corpus: Substitution of a habeas petitioner’s appointed counsel is permissible pursuant to Martel. v. Clair when appointed counsel faces a conflict of interest due to appointed counsel’s possible malfeasance in abandonment of petitioner’s case.(01-20-2015)
Jennings v. StephensHabeas Corpus: Petitioner seeking habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel under two Wiggins theories was not required to file cross-appeal to preserve a Spisak claim because it would not enlarge Petitioner’s rights nor diminish the rights of the State under a District Court’s judgment.(01-14-2015)
McCutcheon et al v. Federal Election CommissionElection Law: The aggregate limit provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971(as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) that put limits on how much total money a contributor can donate to all federal candidates violates First Amendment protection for political expression and political association. (04-02-2014)
Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.Civil Procedure: A suit filed by a State on behalf of the State and their citizens where the State is the only named party in the suit does not constitute a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.(01-14-2014)
Sprint Communications Inc. v. JacobsCivil Procedure: Abstention in civil cases invoking Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 in federal courts extends only to the three “exceptional circumstances” determined in New Orleans Public Services Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350. (12-10-2013)
Hollingsworth v. PerryStanding: Official proponents of a ballot measure do not have a “personal stake” in the enforcement of the measure after the measure has been passed and enacted into law. Also, official proponents of ballot measures do not have a particularized interest sufficient to cause a case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. (06-26-2013)
American Trucking Association, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesPreemption: The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) preempts state or local government regulations requiring a placard with a driving safety contact phone number and an off-street parking plan for trucks not in service.(06-13-2013)
Maryland v. KingCriminal Procedure: A DNA cheek swab may be taken from a suspect of a serious crime whose arrest is supported by probable cause. The taking and analyzing of a DNA cheek swab is a legitimate police booking procedure that is considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.(06-03-2013)
Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A.Bankruptcy Law: Under Bankruptcy Code 11 U.S.C §523(a)(4) the term “defalcation” includes a mental culpability requirement of knowingly or gross recklessness in regard to improper fiduciary behavior.(05-13-2013)

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Kansas v. Carr, JonathanCriminal Procedure: Does the Eighth Amendment require a jury engaged in capital sentencing to be “affirmatively instructed” that mitigating circumstances “need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or whether jury instructions, in context, that are clear that each individual juror must analyze and give weight to a mitigating circumstance satisfies the Eighth Amendment? Also, whether a trial court’s decision to not sever a sibling co-defendant’s sentencing phase from respondent’s violated the right to “individualized sentencing” under the Eighth Amendment and if severed, was not harmless error?(03-30-2015)
Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett; consolidated with Bank of America, N.A. v. Toledo-CardonaBankruptcy Law: Whether under 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, can a Chapter 7 debtor “strip off” in the entirety, a junior mortgage’s lien if the outstanding debt that is owed to a senior lien-holder is more than the current value of the collateral?(11-17-2014)
Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.Civil Rights § 1983: Whether disparate-impact claims are allowed under the Fair Housing Act(10-02-2014)
Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, et al. Labor Law: Whether the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 prohibits employees from receiving compensation for time spent in security screenings under the Fair Labor Standards Act.(03-03-2014)
Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.Patents: Whether a claim violates the statutory requirements for "particular and distinct patent claiming" when the Federal Circuit accepts ambiguous patent claims that have multiple reasonable interpretations, provided that the ambiguity is not “insoluble.”(01-10-2014)
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection AgencyEnvironmental Law: Whether the EPA correctly determined that permissible regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new motor vehicles allowed permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit GHG. (10-15-2013)
Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v ArkisonBankruptcy Law: Whether Article III of the US Constitution allows a bankruptcy court to exercise their judicial power on the basis of litigant consent, and if allowed, does “implied consent” caused by a litigant’s conduct, where a statute does not require consent of the litigant, satisfy Article III.(06-24-2013)
McCullen v CoakleyFirst Amendment: Whether Massachusetts’s selective exclusion law, which makes it a crime for persons to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within thirty-five feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of a “reproductive health care facility” unless the person is an “employee or agent” of the facility acting within the scope of their employment, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (06-24-2013)
Law v. SiegelBankruptcy Law: Whether a Bankruptcy Court should allow a surcharge to extend to a debtor’s protected homestead property.(06-17-2013)