Cases by Issue - Jurisdiction of Federal Courts of Appeals

Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

05-409

Petitioner

Carl Kircher, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Putnam Funds Trust, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Roberts Court (2006-2009)

Decided By

Roberts Court (2006-2009)

Opinion

547 U.S. ___ (2006)

Granted

Friday, January 6, 2006

Argued

Monday, April 24, 2006

Decided

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Advocates

Mark A. Perry (argued the cause for Respondents)

David C. Frederick (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The Security Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) states that class action lawsuits involving more than 50 plaintiffs alleging untruth or manipulation "in connection with the purchase or sale" of certain securities may be moved from state court to federal district court. In this case, several class action suits, each involving more than 50 investors in covered securities, were brought in various state courts over the devaluation of the plaintiffs' investments by Putnam Funds Trust and other mutual funds. The mutual funds asked to have the cases heard in federal court, and the state courts agreed. The federal district court sent the cases back to the state courts, however, finding that SLUSA does not cover suits over devaluation, only those related to purchases or sales. When the mutual funds appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs objected to the appeal because 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) prohibits appeals court review of federal district court decisions to remand cases to state court for lack of jurisdiction. The appeals court, however, found that the district court's decision had been substantive, not jurisdictional, and was therefore not covered by 1447(d). The appeals court then ruled that the plaintiff's claims could not be brought under SLUSA.

Question

Can a federal district court's decision to send a case back to state court because its removal to federal court was not required by the Security Litigation Uniform Standards Act be reviewed by a circuit court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. 1447(d)?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Kircher, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1447

No. In an opinion by Justice David Souter, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the district court's decision had been jurisdictional and that the appeals court's review was therefore barred by 1447(d). Quoting Briscoe v. Bell, 432 U.S. 404, Justice Souter wrote that "where the order is based on one of the [grounds enumerated in 28 U.S.C. 1447(c)], review is unavailable no matter how plain the legal error in ordering the remand."

Bell v. Thompson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:47:05 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

04-514

Petitioner

Ricky Bell, Warden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gregory Thompson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

545 U.S. ___ (2005)

Granted

Friday, January 7, 2005

Argued

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Decided

Monday, June 27, 2005

Advocates

Matthew M. Shors (argued the cause for Respondent)

Jennifer L. Smith (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

A Tennessee trial court sentenced Thompson to death for murder. Thompson made unsuccesful appeals in state court based on the claim that his counsel had failed to adequately investigate his mental health. A federal district court also rejected Thompson's petition based on that claim. However, Thompson's habeas counsel had failed to include in the record the deposition and report of a psychologist who argued Thompson had suffered from serious mental illness. The counsel included the documents when Thompson appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which nevertheless dismissed Thompson's claim. Thompson then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Sixth Circuit stayed its mandate until the Court decided whether to hear the case. The Court denied the petition, but the Sixth Circuit stayed its mandate again, pending the Supreme Court's decision on Thompson's petition for rehearing, which the Court denied. The Sixth Circuit still did not issue its mandate. Five months later, Tennessee had set Thompson's execution date. The Sixth Circuit suddenly issued an amended opinion on Thompson's habeas petition, overturning the district court's dismissal of his ineffective counsel claim and ordering hearings based on that claim. The Sixth Circuit included in the appeal record the initially ommitted psychologist deposition. The circuit court argued its authority to issue an amended opinion five months after the Supreme Court denied Thompson's petition was based on its inherent power to reconsider an opinion before issuance of the the mandate.

Question

After the U.S. Supreme Court had denied certiorari and a petition for rehearing to a death-row prisoner's case, did the Sixth Circuit abuse its discretion by withholding its mandate in the case for more than five months without entering a formal order?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Bell, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by withholding its mandate and not releasing its amended opinion for more than five months after the Supreme Court's final say in the case. The Sixth Circuit cost the state and the parties significant time and resources by not providing notification that it was reconsidering its decision. Further, the Sixth Circuit had the opportunity at the rehearing stage to consider the same mental health arguments it later adopted. Moreover, the evidence and its ommission did not warrant the court's "extraordinary departure from standard procedures." By withholding its mandate for months, the Court said, the Sixth Circuit failed to give the "appropriate level of respect" to Tennessee's judgment that Thompson deserved death. Notably, the Court declined to consider the scope of the appellate courts' Federal Appellate Procedure 41 authority to stay a mandate following a denial of certioarari.

Nguyen v. United States

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:33 +0000

Location

Dr. Nguyen's Office

308 North Main Street Trenton FL 32693

Trenton, FL 32693

United States

29° 36' 53.8488" N, 82° 49' 6.042" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

01-10873

Petitioner

Nguyen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 02-5034

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

539 U.S. 69 (2003)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 2003

Decided

Monday, June 9, 2003

Advocates

Patricia A. Millett (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondent)

Jeffrey T. Green (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Khanh Phuong Nguyen and Tuyet Mai Thi Phan were tried, convicted, and sentenced on federal narcotics charges in the District Court of Guam, a territorial court with subject-matter jurisdiction over both federal-law and local-law causes. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel that convened to hear their appeals included two judges from that court, both of whom are life-tenured Article III judges, and the Chief Judge of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, an Article IV territorial-court judge appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a 10-year term. Neither Nguyen nor Phan objected to the panel's composition before the cases were submitted for decision and neither sought rehearing to challenge the panel's authority to decide their appeals immediately after it affirmed their convictions.

Question

Did a panel of the Court of Appeals consisting of two Article III judges and one Article IV judge have the authority to decide the appeals of two defendants convicted on federal narcotics charges in the District Court of Guam?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Nguyen, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 292

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the Court of Appeals panel did not have the authority to decide Nguyen and Phan's appeals. The Court reasoned that the territorial judge was precluded from designation to the panel and thus the defendants' appeals required reconsideration by a properly constituted panel. The Court found that the statutory and constitutional provisions governing the creation and tenure of territorial judges were distinct from those for district court judges and that the territorial district court was not constituted pursuant to the chapter required to meet the definition of a district court. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer, dissented, arguing that neither Nguyen nor Phan showed that the error seriously affected the judicial proceedings.

Dow Chemical Company v. Stephenson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:54:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

02-271

Petitioner

Dow Chemical Company

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stephenson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

539 U.S. 111 (2003)

Argued

Wednesday, February 26, 2003

Decided

Monday, June 9, 2003

Advocates

Gerson H. Smoger (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Seth P. Waxman (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

In 1984 Dow Chemical Co. negotiated a settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by Vietnam War veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange and subsequently developed various injuries and illnesses. The settlement created a fund that would pay those who developed illnesses up until 1994. Daniel Stephenson, a Vietnam veteran, developed cancer in 1998 and could therefore not collect money from the fund. He sued, saying that he was not adequately represented in the original settlement, which made no provision for injuries that developed after 1994. Therefore, he claimed, he had the right to file a suit of his own. The district court ruled for Dow Chemical; the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed, ruling for Stephenson.

Question

Does the 1984 Agent Orange settlement preclude plaintiffs, who allege that they were inadequately represented in the prior litigation, from asserting claims?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Dow Chemical Company, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Split Vote

An equally divided Court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. In a per curiam opinion, the Court affirmed the judgment of Court of Appeals with respect to Stephenson and vacated and remanded the judgment of Court of Appeals with respect to Isaacson for further consideration in light of Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002). Justice John Paul Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:47:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

01-757

Petitioner

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Henson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

537 U.S. 28 (2002)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 2002

Decided

Tuesday, November 5, 2002

Advocates

David J. Bederman (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Henry B. Alsobrook, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Hurley Henson filed suit in Louisiana state court against Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., asserting various tort claims related to the manufacture and sale of a chlordimeform-based insecticide. When Henson successfully intervened in a similar action, Price v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., in federal district court, the Louisiana court stayed his state court claim. Although the ensuing settlement in Price stipulated that his state-court action be dismissed with prejudice, the Louisiana state court allowed Henson to proceed. Syngenta then removed the action to the federal District Court under the All Writs Act. The District Court dismissed the former state-court action as barred by the Price settlement. Vacating the dismissal, the Court of Appeals wrote that the All Writs Act could not properly support removal of the state-court action.

Question

Does the All Writs Act give a federal district court the authority to remove a state-court case in order to prevent the frustration of orders the federal court has previously issued?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Henson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1651

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the All Writs Act does not provide removal jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that, because the general removal statute requires that a federal court have original jurisdiction over an action in order for it to be removed from a state court, the All Writs Act, alone or in combination with the existence of ancillary jurisdiction in a federal court, is not a substitute for that requirement. Justice John Paul Stevens concurred.

Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation System

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:46:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

01-408

Petitioner

Holmes Group, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vornado Air Circulation System

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

535 U.S. 826 (2002)

Argued

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

Decided

Monday, June 3, 2002

Advocates

James W. Dabney (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Peter W. Gowdey (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., is a manufacturer of patented fans and heaters. In 1992, Vornado sued Duracraft Corp., claiming that Duracraft's use of a spiral grill design in its fans infringed Vornado's trade dress. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals found that Vornado had no protectible trade- dress rights in the grill design. Later, Vornado filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, claiming that Holmes Group, Inc.'s sale of fans and heaters with a spiral grill design infringed Vornado's trade dress. Subsequently, Holmes filed a federal-court action, seeking a declaratory judgment that its products did not infringe Vornado's trade dress and an injunction restraining Vornado from accusing it of such infringement. In response, Vornado asserted a compulsory patent-infringement counterclaim. The District Court ruled in Holmes's favor. Vornado appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which, notwithstanding Holmes's challenge to its jurisdiction, vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case.

Question

Does the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have appellate jurisdiction over a case in which the complaint does not allege a claim arising under federal patent law, but the answer contains a patent-law counterclaim?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Holmes Group, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1331

No. In a 9-0 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the appellate could not assert jurisdiction over such a case. Noting that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction is fixed and turns on whether an action is one arising under federal patent law, the Court reasoned that because the complaint asserted no claim arising under patent law, the court erred in asserting jurisdiction over the appeal. "By limiting the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction to cases in which district courts would have jurisdiction...Congress referred to a well-established body of law that requires courts to consider whether a patent-law claim appears on the face of the plaintiff's...complaint. Because [Holmes's] complaint did not include any claim based on patent law, we vacate the judgment of the Federal Circuit," wrote Justice Scalia.

Clinton v. Goldsmith

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-347

Petitioner

Clinton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Goldsmith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

526 U.S. 529 (1999)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1999

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1999

Advocates

John M. Economidy (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Michael R. Dreeben (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

James T. Goldsmith, an Air Force major, defied an order from a superior officer to inform his sex partners that he was infected with HIV and to take measures to block any transfer of bodily fluids during sexual intercourse. Goldsmith was convicted by general court-martial under several counts and sentenced to six years' confinement and partial forfeiture of salary. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Goldsmith sought no review of the decision in the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) and his conviction became final. Subsequently, the Air Force notified Goldsmith that it was taking action to drop him from the rolls under a newly enacted statute. Goldsmith then petitioned the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals for extraordinary relief under the All Writs Act, which authorizes courts established by Congress to "issue all writs necessary and appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions," to redress the unrelated alleged interruption of his HIV medication during his incarceration, but did not immediately contest his removal from the Air Force rolls. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to act. On appeal to the CAAF from this determination, Goldsmith first asserted the claim that the Air Force's action to drop him violated the Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Constitution. He argued that the statute had been enacted after the date of his court-martial conviction and that the action would inflict successive punishment based on the same conduct underlying his first conviction. The CAAF granted his petition for extraordinary relief to redress the interruption of his HIV medication and relied on the All Writs Act in enjoining the President and other officials from dropping Goldsmith from the Air Force rolls.

Question

Does the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have the jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to enjoin the President and various military officials from dropping a convict from the rolls of the Air Force?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Clinton, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1651

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that because the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces' resort to the All Writs Act was neither in aid of its strictly circumscribed jurisdiction to review court-martial findings and sentences nor "necessary or appropriate" in light of a servicemember's alternative opportunities to seek relief, that court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction against dropping Goldsmith from the Air Force rolls. Justice Souter's opinion emphasized the alternative avenues of relief available to Goldsmith.

Gasperini v. Center for Humanities Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-719

Petitioner

Gasperini

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Center for Humanities Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

518 U.S. 415 (1996)

Argued

Tuesday, April 16, 1996

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1996

Advocates

Theodore B. Olson (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Jonathan S. Abady (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

William Gasperini, a journalist and photographer, loaned 300 original slide transparencies to the Center for Humanities, Inc. When the Center lost the transparencies, Gasperini commenced suit in the District Court. The Center conceded liability. A jury awarded Gasperini $1,500 per transparency, the asserted "industry standard" of compensation for a lost transparency. The Center moved for a new trial contending that the verdict was excessive. The District Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals observed that New York law governed the controversy in this diversity case. Under New York law appellate courts are empowered to review the size of jury verdicts and to order new trials when the jury's award "deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation." Contrarily, under the Seventh Amendment, "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Guided by New York Appellate Division decisions reviewing damage awards for lost transparencies, the court held that the $450,000 verdict "materially deviates from what is reasonable compensation." The court vacated the judgment entered on the jury verdict and ordered a new trial, unless Gasperini agreed to an award of $100,000.

Question

Does New York's law that empowers appellate courts to review the size of jury's awards conflict with the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of jury trials in civil cases?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Gasperini, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 7: Seventh Amendment

Split Vote

No. In a 5-4 plurality decision, authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court ruled that New York's law controlling compensation awards for excessiveness or inadequacy can be given effect, without detriment to the Seventh Amendment, if the review standard is applied by the federal trial court judge, with appellate control of the trial court's ruling confined to "abuse of discretion."

Behrens v. Pelletier

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-1244

Petitioner

Behrens

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pelletier

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

516 U.S. 299 (1996)

Argued

Tuesday, November 7, 1995

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1996

Advocates

Samuel T. Rees (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Cornelia T. L. Pillard (Department of Justice, for the United States as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioner, urging reversal)

Lenard G. Weiss (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

After the Federal Home Loan Bank Board recommended that Robert Pelletier be replaced because of he was under investigation for potential misconduct relating to the collapse of another financial institution, he was fired as the provisional managing officer of Pioneer Savings and Loan Association. Pelletier then filed suit, seeking damages. John Behrens, the agent responsible for the Federal Home Loan Bank Board's recommendation, asserted a statute-of-limitations defense and claimed qualified immunity from suit on the ground that his actions were taken in a governmental capacity. The District Court rejected Behrens' defense of qualified immunity. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that denial of qualified immunity is an immediately appealable "final" decision, that an official claiming qualified immunity is entitled to only one such pretrial appeal, and, ultimately, affirmed the District Court's rejection of Behrens' qualified immunity. On remand, the District Court denied Behrens' motion for summary judgment, which again claimed qualified immunity. On appeal from the latest denial, the Court of Appeals dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

Question

Does a defendant's immediate appeal of an unfavorable qualified-immunity ruling on his motion to dismiss deprive the court of appeals of jurisdiction over a second appeal, also based on qualified immunity, immediately following denial of summary judgment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Behrens, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

No. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the court of appeals was not deprived of jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the agent was not limited in such circumstances to one interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity. Justice Scalia wrote that, "an order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary judgment stage is a 'final' judgment subject to immediate appeal." In a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote, in such cases, "the law normally permits a single interlocutory appeal, and not more than one such appeal."

Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-1530

Petitioner

Things Remembered, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Petrarca

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

516 U.S. 124 (1995)

Argued

Monday, October 2, 1995

Decided

Tuesday, December 5, 1995

Advocates

Steven D. Cundra (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

John C. Weisensell (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Anthony Petrarca commenced an action in Ohio state court to collect rent allegedly owed by Child World, Inc. under two commercial leases and to enforce Cole National Corporation's guarantee of Child World's performance under the leases. After Child World filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, Cole's successor in interest, Things Remembered, Inc., removed the action to federal court under the bankruptcy removal statute and the general federal removal statute. The Bankruptcy Court held that the removal was timely and proper and that it had jurisdiction. The District Court reversed and remanded the case to state court, holding that the removal was untimely and that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals dismissed Things Remembered's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Question

May a federal court of appeals review a district court order remanding a bankruptcy case to state court on grounds of untimely removal?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Petrarca, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1447

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that if an order remands a removed bankruptcy case to state court because of a timely raised defect in removal procedure or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review the order under the provisions of the general federal removal statute. The Court reasoned that the general removal statute bars appellate review of any order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed so that only remands based on the grounds recognized by the statute, such as a timely raised defect in removal procedure or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, are immune from review under the statute.

Swint v. Chambers County Commission

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-1636

Petitioner

Swint et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chambers County Commission et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

514 U.S. 35 (1995)

Argued

Tuesday, January 10, 1995

Decided

Wednesday, March 1, 1995

Advocates

Robert B. McDuff (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Paul M. Smith (on behalf of the Respondents)

Paul R. Q. Wolfson (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Swint, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Celotex Corp. v. Edwards Et ux.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-1504

Petitioner

Celotex Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Edwards Et ux.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

514 U.S. 300 (1995)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1994

Decided

Wednesday, April 19, 1995

Advocates

Brent M. Rosenthal (on behalf of the Respondents)

Jeffrey W. Warren (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Celotex Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1334

None

Elder v. Holloway

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-8579

Petitioner

Elder

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Holloway et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

510 U.S. 510 (1994)

Argued

Monday, January 10, 1994

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1994

Advocates

Michael E. Tankersley (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James J. Davis (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Elder, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Salve Regina College v. Russell

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-1629

Petitioner

Salve Regina College

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Russell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

499 U.S. 225 (1991)

Argued

Tuesday, November 27, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, March 20, 1991

Advocates

Steven E. Snow (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Edward T. Hogan (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Salve Regina College, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-774

Petitioner

Newman-Green, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alfonzo-Larrain

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 826 (1989)

Argued

Monday, April 24, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1989

Advocates

Phil Caldwell Neal (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Frank K. Heap (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Newman-Green, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1653

None

Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-499

Petitioner

Christianson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Colt Industries Operating Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 800 (1988)

Argued

Monday, April 18, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1988

Advocates

Anthony M. Radice (on behalf of the Respondent)

Stuart R. Lefstein (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Christianson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1245

None

United States v. Hohri

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-510

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hohri

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 64 (1987)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1987

Advocates

Benjamin L. Zelenko (on behalf of Respondent)

Charles Fried (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Tort Claims, or Alien Tort Statute

None

Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-195

Petitioner

Icicle Seafoods, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Worthington

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 709 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1986

Decided

Monday, April 21, 1986

Advocates

Carson F. Eller (on behalf of Respondents)

Clemens H. Barnes (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Jean v. Nelson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-5240

Petitioner

Jean

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Nelson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 846 (1985)

Argued

Monday, March 25, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1985

Advocates

Ira Jay Kurzban (on behalf of the petitioners)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Nelson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-693

Petitioner

Will

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Calvert Fire Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 655 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 1978

Decided

Friday, June 23, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Will, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wetzel

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1245

Petitioner

Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wetzel

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 737 (1976)

Argued

Monday, January 19, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wetzel, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-366

Petitioner

Tidewater Oil Co.

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 151 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, December 6, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 29

None

Nowakowski v. Maroney

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

222

Petitioner

Nowakowski

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maroney

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 542 (1967)

Argued

Monday, March 13, 1967

Decided

Monday, April 10, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Nowakowski, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Ftc v. Dean Foods Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

970

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dean Foods Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 597 (1966)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ftc, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1651

None

Auto Workers v. Scofield

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Auto Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Scofield

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 53

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 205 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, October 20, 1965

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Auto Workers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1254

None

Shenker v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

414

Petitioner

Shenker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Baltimore & Ohio R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

374 U.S. 1 (1963)

Argued

Wednesday, April 17, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Shenker, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Employers' Liability

None

Turner v. City Of Memphis

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Turner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

City Of Memphis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 350 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 1962

Decided

Friday, March 16, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Turner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

United States v. Fruehauf

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Fruehauf

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

365 U.S. 146 (1961)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1961

Decided

Monday, February 20, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Byrd v. Blue Ridge Cooperative

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Byrd

Respondent

Blue Ridge Cooperative

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

356 U.S. 525 (1958)

Argued

Tuesday, January 28, 1958

Reargued:

April 28-29, 1958

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Byrd, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Jaffke v. Dunham

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Jaffke

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dunham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Decided By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Opinion

352 U.S. 280 (1957)

Argued

Wednesday, December 12, 1956

Decided

Monday, January 14, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jaffke, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

La Buy v. Howes Leather Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

La Buy

Respondent

Howes Leather Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Decided By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Opinion

352 U.S. 249 (1957)

Argued

October 17-18, 1956

Decided

Monday, January 14, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Howes Leather Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1651

None

Labor Board v. Warren Company

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Warren Company

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

350 U.S. 107 (1955)

Argued

Thursday, October 20, 1955

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1955

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Labor Board, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Shenandoah Broadcasting v. Ascap.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

323

Petitioner

Shenandoah Broadcasting

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ascap.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 39 (1963)

Decided

Monday, October 21, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Shenandoah Broadcasting, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 29

None

Donovan v. Richland County Assn.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-255

Appellee

Richland County Assn.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Donovan

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 389 (1982)

Decided

Monday, January 11, 1982

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Donovan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1252

None