(15 summaries)
Brad Weyer
United States Supreme Court
| Title | Excerpt | Filling Date |
|---|---|---|
| Sebelius v. Cloer | Attorney Fees: A claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), even if untimely, may qualify for an award of attorney’s fees so long as there is good faith and a reasonable basis for the claim. | (05-20-2013) |
| Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum | Civil Law: The presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which precludes civil claims for torts arising outside the jurisdiction of the United States. | (04-17-2013) |
| Gunn v. Minton | Civil Procedure: "[S]tate legal malpractice claims based on underlying patent matters will rarely, if ever, arise under federal patent law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1338(a)." | (02-20-2013) |
| Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center | Administrative Law: Because the 180-day period within which a healthcare provider must appeal a fiscal intermediary’s initial decision on the amount for which the provider is to be reimbursed for inpatient services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries under 42 U. S. C. §1395oo(a)(3) is not “jurisdictional” it was permissible for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to allow a regulation extending the time for a provider’s appeal to three years and the presumption in favor of equitable tolling is not applicable. | (01-22-2013) |
| Arkansas Game and Fish Comm'n v. United States | Constitutional Law: Government action that causes a temporary physical invasion may constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment. | (12-04-2012) |
| Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. | Employment Law: Pharmaceutical sales representatives are "outside salesmen" under the most reasonable interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and are thus exempt from overtime compensation. | (06-18-2012) |
| Coleman v. Johnson | Post-Conviction Relief: In reviewing a criminal conviction, a reviewing court may only set aside a jury verdict due to insufficient evidence “if no rational trier of fact could have agreed with the verdict." It is the jury’s responsibility to draw inferences and conclusions from the evidence offered at trial and deference must be given. | (05-29-2012) |
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted
| Title | Excerpt | Filling Date |
|---|---|---|
| Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice | Preemption: Whether the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) precludes private class actions where the alleged securities transaction is “more than tangentially related” to the “heart, crux or gravamen” of the alleged fraud. | (01-18-2013) |
| Salinas v. Texas | Constitutional Law: Whether, or under what conditions, prearrest, pre-Miranda silence is protected by the Fifth Amendment. | (01-12-2013) |
| Bullock v. BankChampaign | Bankruptcy Law: Whether §523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code requires a showing of “extreme recklessness” or merely “objective recklessness” to constitute defalcation. | (10-29-2012) |
| Descamps v. United States | Sentencing: Whether a state conviction under a modified statute that is missing an element of the generic crime may be used to enhance sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act. | (09-06-2012) |
| Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center | Civil Procedure: Whether the 180-day statutory time limit for filing an appeal with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board from a final Medicare payment determination made by the PRRB is subject to equitable tolling. | (06-25-2012) |
| Vance v. Ball State University | Employment Law: Whether "supervisor" liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to harassment by individuals the employer has vested with authority to direct and oversee alleged victims’ work, or is limited to individuals who are empowered to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” the alleged victim. | (06-25-2012) |
| Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States | Constitutional Law: Whether a physical invasion must be permanent in order to constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment. | (04-02-2012) |
| United States v. Woods | Tax Law: “(1) Whether Section 6662 of the Internal Revenue Code, which prescribes a penalty for an underpayment of federal income tax that is “attributable to” an overstatement of basis in property, applies to an underpayment resulting from a determination that a transaction lacks economic substance because the sole purpose of the transaction was to generate a tax loss by artificially inflating the taxpayer’s basis in property. (2) Whether the district court had jurisdiction in this case under 26 U.S.C. §6226 to consider the substantial valuation misstatement penalty.” | (03-25-2012) |