Monday, October 4th, 2010
11

Most Exciting Cases Of The New Supreme Court Term

That's today!All case summaries via SCOTUSblog.

16. Snyder v. Phelps: "Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?"

15. General Dynamics Corp. v. United States: "Whether the government can maintain its claim against a party when it invokes the state-secrets privilege to completely deny that party a defense to the claim."

14. Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.: "Whether Exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act – which exempts from mandatory disclosure records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes when such disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of 'personal privacy' – protects the 'privacy' of corporate entities."

13. Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants: "Does a state law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors violate the First Amendment right to free speech?"

12. Sykes v. United States: "Whether using a vehicle while knowingly or intentionally fleeing from a law enforcement officer after being ordered to stop constitutes a 'violent felony' under the Armed Career Criminal Act"

11. Staub v. Proctor Hospital: "Can an employer be found liable for the discriminatory acts of supervisors, who do not themselves make employment decisions but do influence the employment decision-makers?"

10. Cullen v. Pinholster: "Whether a federal court can overturn a state criminal conviction on the basis of facts the defendant could have alleged, but did not, in state court."

9. Bruesewitz v. Wyeth: "The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protects vaccine manufacturers from liability for certain injuries caused by their vaccines (giving injured patients compensation from the government instead). Does that immunity apply when the victim claims that the design of the drug created an avoidable and unnecessary risk to patients?"

8. Michigan v. Bryant: "The Sixth Amendment generally requires prosecutors to present testimonial evidence through live testimony at trial. Do statements made by a wounded crime victim to police officers about the perpetrator constitute such testimonial evidence, or can the police officer testify at trial about what the victim said?"

7. Kentucky v. King: "Under what circumstances can lawful police action impermissibly 'create' exigent circumstances that preclude warrantless entry?"

6. Premo v. Moore: "When a defendant has pleaded guilty, but later challenges his conviction on the ground that his lawyer should have moved to suppress his confession, is he entitled to habeas relief upon showing that his confession was coerced?"

5. Pepper v. United States: "May a court consider a defendant's post-sentencing rehabilitation as a ground for reducing his sentence below the federal sentencing guideline range? When a sentence is vacated on appeal, and a new judge is assigned on remand, must the new judge follow the prior district judge's sentencing findings?"

3. Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart: "Does the Eleventh Amendment prohibit an independent state agency established to protect individuals with disabilities from suing state officials in federal court to obtain a court order requiring the officials to comply with federal law?"

2. Skinner v. Switzer: "When a convicted prisoner wishes to sue a state to obtain access to biological evidence for DNA testing, is he required to file a habeas petition or can he file a civil rights suit instead?"

1. Connick v. Thompson: "Can a prosecutor's office be held liable for the illegal conduct of one of its prosecutors, on the theory that the office failed to adequately train its employees, when there has been only one violation resulting from that deficient training?"



Natasha Vargas-Cooper is passionate about the law. And "Mad Men."

11 Comments / Post A Comment

saythatscool (#101)

Jesus, I don't like the sound of number 9.

boyofdestiny (#1,243)

Immunity? That precis sounds too punny to not have been written by STC.

Maevemealone (#968)

I actually know people this year arguing before the Supreme Court! Team Bruesewitz!

Oh, man, and I thought that having Skilling -and- Shatzer made the 2009 term the best ever. Damn, this is going to be a slugfest!

Really, I'm excited.

KarenUhOh (#19)

With this Court? With Kagan recusing herself on a wad of cases?

16. Yes.
15. No.
14. Yes.
13. No.
12. Yes.
11. No.
10. No.
9. Yes.
8. Yes.
7. None based on these facts; but reserve the right to look at different factual scenarios when you bring them here, and toss them back in your face.
6. Are you kidding?
5. No X 2.
4. Guilty, even though there's no 4.
3. Not sure what the 11th Amendment is, but we're against suing.
2. Got any other options? No.
1. Everyone makes mistakes.

Alex Balk (#4)

KUO for the next vacancy.

MatthewGallaway (#1,239)

I love the idea of NVC covering the SCOTUS beat. (Just don't go to law school!)

Just trying to marry a lawyer! :) / :(

buzzorhowl (#992)

Number 12: abso-fuckin-lutely. Someone running from the cops ran over and killed a kid I used to know. Even if the criminal doesn't kill anyone while fleeing, they're putting other people at risk by doing so, and should be charged accordingly.

Post a Comment