(10 summaries)
Christopher Thresher
United States Supreme Court
| Title | Excerpt | Filling Date |
|---|---|---|
| City of Arlington v. FCC | Administrative Law: Courts must apply the Chevron framework to an agency interpretation of a statutory ambiguity that concerns the scope of the agency’s statutory authority. | (05-20-2013) |
| U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen | Employment Law: The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not authorize courts to use equitable principles to rewrite contractual language. | (04-16-2013) |
| Smith v. United States | Criminal Law: A defendant—not the government—has the burden of proving withdrawal from a conspiracy. | (01-09-2013) |
| Astrue v. Capato | Administrative Law: Posthumously conceived biological children are entitled to Social Security survivor’s benefits only if they could inherit from the deceased under state intestacy law or meet another statutory alternative. | (05-21-2012) |
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted
| Title | Excerpt | Filling Date |
|---|---|---|
| Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter | Arbitration: Whether an arbitrator acts within his powers under the Federal Arbitration Act or exceeds those powers when allowing class arbitration based solely on parties’ use of broad contractual language in an arbitration agreement. | (12-07-2012) |
| Boyer v. Louisiana | Constitutional Law: Whether a five-year delay due to a state funding crisis for indigent defendants counts against the state for speedy trial purposes. | (10-05-2012) |
| US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen | Employment Law: Whether § 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) authorizes courts to use equitable principles to rewrite contractual language and refuse to order participants to reimburse their plan for benefits paid even when the plan’s terms give it an absolute right to full reimbursement. | (06-25-2012) |
| Smith v. United States | Criminal Law: Whether the defendant bears the burden of proving withdrawal from a conspiracy or whether the burden shifts to the government once the defendant meets the burden of production to show withdrawal from the conspiracy. | (06-18-2012) |
| Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp. | Employment Law: Whether donning and doffing safety clothing falls within the meaning of “changing clothes” in Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. | (02-19-2012) |
| Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp. | Employment Law: Whether donning and doffing safety clothing falls within the meaning of “changing clothes” in Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. | (02-19-2012) |