January 2 summaries
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, et al.
Whether specific jurisdiction requires a causation connection between a defendant's connections with a forum state and the Plaintiff's suit?
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
District of Columbia, et al. v. Wesby, et al.
Whether Petitioners were entitled to qualified immunity because the applicable law regarding trespass was not clearly established and whether probable cause existed when Petitioners arrested Respondents for trespass after being informed by the homeowner that no one had permission to be on the property and if Petitioners could use that information to discredit the inconsistent explanations provided by Respondents?
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
February 4 summaries
Class v. United States
Whether a guilty plea waives a defendant’s right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under which he or she was convicted?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Artis v. District of Columbia
Whether the tolling provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) suspends the statute of limitation period while a state-law claim is pending in federal court and for an additional 30 days after it is dismissed, or whether the statute of limitation period continues running while the state-law claim is pending in federal court but the plaintiff has a 30-day grace period to refile that state-law claim after it is dismissed.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago
Whether the thirty-day limit for extending the deadline to file notices of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) is a statutory mandate or a claim-processing rule open to equitable exceptions.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Wilson v. Sellers
“Whether the court's decision in Harrington v. Richter silently abrogates the presumption set forth in Ylst v. Nunnemaker – that a federal court sitting in habeas proceedings should “look through” a summary state court ruling to review the last reasoned decision – as a slim majority of the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held in this case, despite the agreement of both parties that the Ylst presumption should continue to apply?”
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
March 2 summaries
Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System
Whether Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K sets forth an affirmative duty to disclose that is actionable under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934?
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
U.S. National Bank Association v. Village at Lakeridge
Whether the appropriate standard of review for determining non-stuatory insider status in a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is the de novo standard of review, as followed by the 3rd, 7th, and 10th Circuits, or the clearly erroneous standard of review, as followed by the 9th Circuit?
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
April 2 summaries
Ayestas v. Davis
Whether a court may deny a movant's request for "reasonably necessary" resources under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) to investigate and advance an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that was forfeited by the movant's state habeas counsel, where the movant's "existing evidence does not meet the ultimate burden of proof at the time the § 3599(f) motion is made."
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC
Whether the Alien Tort Statute authorizes claims against corporate defendants?
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
May 3 summaries
Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.
“Whether the safe harbor of Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits avoidance of a transfer made by or to a financial institution, without regard to whether the institution has a beneficial interest in the property transferred.”
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Patchak v. Zinke
“Whether a statute directing the federal courts to ‘promptly dismiss’ a pending lawsuit following substantive determinations by the courts (including this court's determination that the ‘suit may proceed’) – without amending the underlying substantive or procedural laws – violates the Constitution's separation of powers principles.”
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
SAS Institute, Inc. v. Lee
“Whether 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), which provides that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review “shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner,” requires that Board to issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged by the petitioner, or whether it allows that Board to issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of only some of the patent claims challenged by the petitioner.”
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
June 2 summaries
Carpenter v. U.S.
Whether the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures protects from the government's warrantless collection of cell phone data that includes the cell user’s historic location.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC
Whether inter partes review, an adversarial proceeding used by the Patent and Trademark Office to determine the validity of existing patents, violates the Constitutional right to an Article III forum and a jury.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
July 0 summaries
August 0 summaries
September 9 summaries
Byrd v. U.S.
Whether a driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he has the renter's permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Collins v. Virginia
Whether the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permits a police officer's warrantless entry onto private property to search a vehicle parked in close proximity to a dwelling.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dalmazzi v. U.S.
Whether the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, or the prohibition of active-duty military service officers from dual-officeholding pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii), disqualifies a judge who sits on a military Court of Criminal Appeals, if they are also commissioned or appointed to the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Encino Motorcars v. Navarro
Whether the overtime-pay exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(a), applies to car dealership service advisors.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Hall, Elsa v. Hall, Samuel, et al.
Whether, in single district consolidated cases, the entry of a final judgement in only one case triggers the appeal-clock for that case.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Janus v. American Federation
Whether mandatory public-sector agency fees are compelled speech, in violation of the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
McCoy v. Louisiana
Whether defense counsel's decision to concede guilt in a capital case, over the defendant’s express objection, violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights and Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Rosales-Mireles v. U.S.
Whether the Court's discretionary inquiry under harmless error review, which requires the error to "seriously affect[] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” may be expressed and applied as an error that "would shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge.”
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Vogt v. City of Hays
Whether a criminal defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is violated if the government uses compelled statements against the criminal defendant during a probable cause hearing.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
October 6 summaries
Florida v. Georgia
Whether the Special Master erred by requiring Florida to establish by a “guarantee” standard that imposition of a consumption cap on Georgia’s water use from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (ACF Basin) would not be offset by the operations of dams and reservoirs within the ACF Basin by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Texas v. New Mexico
Whether New Mexico is prohibited from recapturing water it has delivered to Elephant Butte Reservoir pursuant to the 1938 Rio Grande Compact, after that water is released from the Reservoir.
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
Currier v. Virginia
Whether an acquittal under the Double Jeopardy Clause is available to a defendant who consents to severance of charges into successive trials.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dahda v. United States
Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge’s territorial jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Ohio v. American Express Co.
Whether a narrow definition of the relevant market may permit a finding of anti-competitive effects under the Sherman Act rule of reason analysis, thereby requiring the defendant to demonstrate the restraint on trade had pro-competition benefits.
Area(s) of Law:- Consumer Credit
United States v. Microsoft Corporation
Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a warrant under 18 U.S.C. 2703 to disclose material that the provider stored abroad.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
November 3 summaries
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida
Whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
Whether a Minnesota Statute that bans voters from wearing any political badge, political button, or other political insignia at the polling place is facially overbroad under the First Amendment?
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
Whether California’s “Reproductive FACT Act” (FACT) violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment by compelling crisis pregnancy centers to provide information on state-funded abortions, or in the case of unlicensed facilities, to provide a disclaimer that the facility does not provide medical services.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
December 8 summaries
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District v. SolarCity Corporation
Whether orders denying state-action immunity to public entities are immediately appealable under the "collateral-order" doctrine.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Benisek v. Lamone
Whether the preliminary relief standard for an actual, concrete injury in a First Amendment retaliation challenge to a partisan gerrymander requires a plaintiff to prove that the gerrymander has dictated and will continue to dictate the outcome of every election held in the district under the gerrymandered map.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
China Agritech, Inc. v. Michael Resh, Et Al.
Whether the rule from American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) tolls statutes of limitations to permit a previously absent class member to bring a subsequent class action outside the applicable limitations period.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Hughes v. United States
Whether a defendant who enters into a plea agreement is eligible for a sentence reduction when there is a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines applicable to the defendant’s sentencing range.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Koons v. U.S.
Whether federal courts may retroactively reduce sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if the defendant received a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Sveen v. Melin
Whether divorce-upon-revocation statutes applied retroactively violate the Contract Clause of U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
U.S. v. Sanchez-Gomez
Whether the court of appeals may consider an interlocutory challenge to the use of pretrial restraints if the individual claims are moot due to the cessation of the challenged action.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren
Whether tribal sovereign immunity applies to in rem actions against tribal property in which there is no congressional abrogation or waiver by the tribe.
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law