Is the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 the same standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50?
Decisions:
Briefs:
Wednesday, March 22, 2000
Natsios, MA Sec. of Finance v. Natl. Foreign Trade Council (No. 99-474)
Subject:
Massachusetts Burma Law, Supremacy Clause, Foreign Commerce Clause, foreign policy, human rights
Question:
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit correctly held that the Commonwelth of Massachusett's selective purchasing law targeting commerce with Burma violates the Constitution's Foreign Commerce Clause, unconstitutionally infringes upon the federal government's exclusive authority to regulate foreign affairs, and is preempted by federal Burma sanctions legislation.
Decisions:
Briefs:
Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States (No. 99-244)
Subject:
Outer Banks Protection Act, breach of contract, oil exploration
Question:
Whether the United States, after having accepted consideration from a government contrator, is required to return that consideration (i.e. pay restitution) when subsequent government action bars the United States from performing its contractual obligations.
Decisions:
Briefs:
Marathon Oil Company, Petitioner v. United States (No. 99-253)
Subject:
Outer Banks Protection Act, breach of contract, oil exploration
Question:
Whether the United States, after having accepted consideration from a government contrator, is required to return that consideration (i.e. pay restitution) when subsequent government action bars the United States from performing its contractual obligations.
Decisions:
Briefs:
See Mobil.
Monday, March 27, 2000
Robin Free, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al. (No. 99-391)
Subject:
Civil procedure, jurisdiction, antitrust, price fixing
Question:
Whether the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. 1367, overrules Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291 (1973), and thus expands federal subject matter jurisdiction in a class action to encompass class members whose claims do not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirment of 28 U.S.C. 1332, as long as diversity jurisdiction exists over the claims of one named plaintiff.
Decisions:
Briefs:
Donald E. Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc., et al. (No. 99-502)
Subject:
Attorney fees
Question:
Whether a patent applicant who engaged in inequitable conduct may be joined as a party and held liable for attorneys' fees in litigation instituted by his corporation to enforce patents obtained as the fruits of his inequitable conduct, and if so, whether the District Court abused its discretion when it allowed such joinder.
Decisions:
Briefs:
Tuesday, March 28, 2000
Charles C. Apprendi, Jr. v. New Jersey (No. 99-478)
Subject:
Hate crime, sentence enhancement, burden of proof
Question:
Whether New Jersey violates Fifth Amendment Due Process rights and Sixth Amendment guarantees of notice and jury trial by providing that a defendant's maximum punishment may be increased from ten to twenty years based solely upon a finding by a sentencing judge under a preponderance of the evidence standard, without notice by indictment and jury trial, that the defendant had the requisite intent necessary to establish a "hate" crime.
Decisions:
Briefs:
Juatassa Sims v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security (No. 98-9537)
Subject:
Social Security, administrative appeal, waiver
Question:
Whether a federal court can impose an issue exhaustion requirement upon Social Security claimants to bar issues that were not specifically raised during the administrative process.
Decisions:
Briefs:
Wednesday, March 29, 2000
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, Jane, etc., et al. (No. 99-62)
Subject:
First Amendment, Establishment Clause, school prayer
Question:
Whether petitioner's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause.
Decisions:
Briefs:
Antonio Tonton Slack v. Eldon McDaniel, Warden, et al. (No. 98-6322)
[Reargument, first argued October 4, 1999]
Subject:
Habeas corpus
Question:
- Do the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), specifically including 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) and 28 U.S.C. 2244(b) (Supp. III 1997), control the proceedings on appeal?
- If AEDPA does control the proceedings on appeal, may a certificate of appealability issue under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) (Supp. III 1997)?
Decisions:
Briefs:
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Copyright © 2008 FindLaw
