Willamette Law Online

(17 summaries)

Kayla Warr

United States Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
White v. WoodallSentencing: For a federal court to grant habeas corpus relief to a defendant, the previous state court's decision must involve an objectively unreasonable application of established federal law. (04-23-2014)
United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., Et. al. Tax Law: Severance payments are taxable wages under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.(03-25-2014)
Rosemond v. United StatesCriminal Law: A defendant is guilty of aiding and abetting under §924(c) when the defendant actively participates in the commission of a crime, and when the defendant has advance knowledge that a gun will be used in a crime.(03-05-2014)
Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. TroiceCivil Procedure: The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 does not preclude the Respondents' state-law class actions alleging that the Petitioners assisted in carrying out a Ponzi scheme by alleging that the uncovered securities that plaintiffs purchased were protected by covered securities. (02-26-2014)
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management DistrictProperty Law: The Fifth Amendment requires that the government follow the Nollan/Dolan requirement when demanding property from a land-use permit applicant even when the permit is denied.(06-25-2013)
United States v. Kebodeaux Constitutional Law: The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to enact the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). (06-24-2013)
Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc.First Amendment: The First Amendment does not allow for a policy that compels affirmation of a belief to be a condition for federal funding. (06-20-2013)
Metrish v. LancasterConstitutional Law: Federal habeas relief will only be granted if a state court, in rejecting a due process claim, unreasonably applied a clearly established Federal law. (05-20-2013)

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Kerry v. DinImmigration: Whether the spouse of a non-citizen has a protected liberty interest in the denial of a visa to the non-citizen and whether a person can challenge the denial or a visa and require the government to list specific reasons for denial. (10-02-2014)
Rodriguez v. United StatesCriminal Procedure: Whether conducting a canine sniff without reasonable suspicion at the conclusion of a lawful traffic stop is a "de minimis" intrusion on personal liberty and is thus lawful under the Fourth Amendment. (10-02-2014)
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter Civil Procedure: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3287 applies to claims brought by private relators, and also leads to indefinite tolling; and whether the “first-to-file” bar in the False Claims Act is essentially a “one-case-at-a-time” rule.(07-01-2014)
Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. SharifBankruptcy Law: Whether a bankruptcy court has constitutional authority to enter a final order in a federal 11 U.S.C. § 541 action when there is also a state property law issue present because the action does not “stem from the bankruptcy itself,” and whether conduct of a party is enough to satisfy implied consent for purposes of Article III judicial power. (07-01-2014)
Comptroller v. Wynne Tax Law: Whether the Constitution of the United States requires states to provide an income tax credit for income tax paid to other states(05-27-2014)
Johnson v. United StatesCriminal Law: Whether possession of a shotgun is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. (04-21-2014)
Lane v. FranksEmployment Law: (1) Whether the government, under the First Amendment, may retaliate against a public employee for giving testimony which was not a part of the employee’s ordinary job responsibilities; and (2) whether damages are precluded in a qualified immunity claim. (01-17-2014)
Ray Haluch Gravel Co., Et al. V. Central Pension Fund, Et al. Appellate Procedure: Whether a district court’s decision that does not resolve a request for contractual attorney’s fees is a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which provides that courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from final decisions of the district courts. (06-17-2013)
United States v. ApelProperty Law: Whether 18 U.S.C. §1382, which prohibits a person from reentering property owned by the military after an officer has ordered him not to reenter, applies to property where there is a public easement. (06-03-2013)