Return to Home
 
-2000 Supreme Court Docket Summary 
..Monthly Sittings: Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | April || Tom's Top 10 Cases ||
........................... Cases Reversals || Affirmances || Dismissals || Non argued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

top

 

 

 

 

 

























top


























top









































top























OCTOBER SITTING: WEEK NO. 1 - ***

    1. Gitlitz v. Commissioner (99-1295http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1295.htm) (5/8; 10/2; 1/9) (CA10; Reverse; 8-1) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1295.pdf
    2. Taxpayers may increase their bases in S corporations by the amount of the corporationÿs discharge of indebtedness excluded from gross income, and the increase before the tax attributes are reduced.

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

      Majority: [CT] & WHR, JPS, SOC, AS, AMK, DS, RBG

      Dissent: [SGB] (in part)

    3. Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp. v. UMW (99-1038http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1038.htm) (3/20; 10/2; 11/28) (CA4; Affirm; 9-0) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/99pdf/99-1038.pdf
    4. The narrow exception for refusing to enforce arbitration agreements contrary to public policy does not encompass an arbitration award requiring reinstatement of an employee for drug use.

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

      Majority: [SGB] & WHR, JPS, SOC, AMK, DS, RBG

      Concurrence: [AS] (in judgment) & CT

    5. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (99-1030http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1030.htm) (2/21; 10/3; 11/28) (CA7; Affirm; 6-3) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/99pdf/99-1030.pdf
    6. Suspicionless roadblocks are unconstitutional if the intent is to find illicit drugs.

      Class: criminal; nonbusiness; constitutional

      Majority: [SOC] & JPS, AMK, DS, RBG, SGB

      Dissents: [WHR] & CT, AS (in part); [CT]

    7. Green Tr. Fin. Corp. v. Randolph (99-1235http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1235.htm) (4/3; 10/3; 12/11) (CA11; Rev.; 9-0, 5-4) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/99pdf/99-1235.pdf
    8. An order dismissing a case and compelling arbitration is appealable. An arbitration clause that carries the risk of substantial fees is not per se unenforceable because it is contrary to the Truth in Lending Act.

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

      Majority: [WHR] & AS, SOC, AMK, CT & [in part] JPS, DS, RBG, SGB

      Dissent: [RBG] & JPS, DS & [in part] SGB

    9. Ferguson v. City of Charleston (99-936http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-936.htm) (2/28; 10/4; 3/21) (CA4; Rev.; 6-3) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-936.pdf
    10. A hospital cannot test expectant mothers for crack cocaine and provide the information to the police without knowing consent.

      Class: civil rights; nonbusiness; constitutional

      Majority: [JPS] & SOC, DS, RBG, SGB

      Concurrence: [AMK] (in judgment)

      Dissent: [AS] & WHR, CT

    11. Legal Serv. Corp. v. Velazquez (99-603http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-603.htm [& 99-960]) (4/3; 10/4; 2/28) (CA2; Aff.; 5-4) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-603.pdf
    12. Congress cannot bar the use of LSC money to challenge existing welfare law.

      Class: civil rights; nonbusiness; constitutional

      Majority: [AMK] & JPS, DS, RBG, SGB

      Dissent: [AS] & WHR, SOC, CT

       

      OCTOBER SITTING: WEEK NO. 2 -

    13. Cleveland v. United States (99-804http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-804.htm) (3/20; 10/10; 11/7) (CA5; Reverse; Unan.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-804.pdf
    14. A license is not "property" for purposes of the mail fraud act.

      Class: criminal; non-business; statutory

      Majority: [RBG] & unanimous

    15. Artuz v. Bennett (99-1238http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1238.htm) (4/17; 10/10; 11/7) (CA2; Affirm; Unan.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1238.pdf
    16. A state post-conviction application is "properly filed" for purposes of AEDPA when all filing requirements are complied with.

      Class: criminal; non-business; statutory

      Majority: [AS] & unanimous

    17. University of Ala. v. Garrett (99-1240http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1240.htm) (4/17; 10/11; 2/21) (CA11; Rev.; 5-4) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1240.pdf
    18. States are immune from suit under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

      Class: civil rights; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [WHR] & SOC, AS, AMK, CT

      Concurrence: [AMK] & SOC

      Dissent: [SGB] & JPS, DS, RBG

    19. Brentwood Acad. v. TN SSAA (99-901http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-901.htm) (2/21; 10/11; 2/20) (CA6; Rev.; 5-4) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-901.pdf
    20. This school athletic association is a state actor.

      Class: civil rights; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [DS] & JPS, SOC, RBG, SGB

      Dissent: [CT] & WHR, AS, AMK

      NOVEMBER SITTING: WEEK NO. 1 -

    21. Lopez v. Davis (99-7504http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-7504.htm) (4/24; 10/30; 1/10) (CA8; Affirm; 6-3) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-7504.pdf
    22. A regulation providing that prisoners who committed firearms-related offenses are not eligible for release after completing a drug treatment program is valid.

      Class: criminal; non-business; statutory

      Majority: [RBG] & SOC, AS, DS, CT, SGB

      Dissent: [JPS] & WHR, AMK

    23. Central Green Co. v. United States (99-859http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-859.htm) (3/20; 10/30; 2/21) (CA9; Rev.; Unan.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-859.pdf
    24. "Flood waters" for purposes of federal immunity are those that actually overrun facilites.

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

      Majority: [JPS] & Unanimous

    25. Solid Waste Agency v. Army COE (99-1178http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1178.htm) (5/22; 10/31; 1/9) (CA7; Reverse; 5-4) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1178.pdf
    26. The Clean Water Act does not apply to waters not adjacent to open water.

      Class: general civil; business; constitutional

      Majority: [WHR] & SOC, AS, AMK, CT

      Dissent: [JPS] & DS, RBG, SGB

    27. Seling v. Young (99-1185http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1185.htm) (3/20; 10/31; 1/17) (CA9; Reverse; 8-1) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1185.pdf
    28. Civil commitment of a sexual predator cannot be challenged as "punitive" in violation of Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto "as applied."

      Class: criminal; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [SOC] & WHR, AS, AMK, DS, RBG, SGB

      Concurrence: [AS] & DS; [CT] (in judgment)

      Dissent: [JPS]

    29. Illinois v. McArthur (99-1132http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1132.htm) (5/1; 11/1; 2/20) (IL; Reverse; 8-1) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1132.pdf
    30. Police may secure a residence for a short time pending issuance of a search warrant if they have probable cause and reasonably believe evidence would otherwise be destroyed.

      Class: criminal; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [SGB] & WHR, SOC, AS, AMK, DS, CT, RBG

      Concurrence: [DS]

      Dissent: [JPS]

    31. Rogers v. Tennessee (99-6218http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-6218.htm) (5/22; 11/1; 5/14) (TN; Aff.; 5-4)http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-6218.pdf
    32. A state may retroactively abrogate its "year and a day" rule for homicide.

      Class: criminal; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [SOC] & WHR, AMK, DS, RBG

      Dissent: [JPS]; [AS] & JPS, CT & [SGB] (in part); [SGB]

       

      NOVEMBER SITTING: WEEK NO. 2 -

    33. Circuit City Stores v. Adams (99-1379http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1379.htm) (5/22; 11/6; 3/21) (CA9; Rev.; 5-4) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1379.pdf
    34. The Federal Arbitration Act applies to most employment contracts.

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

      Majority: [AMK] & WHR, SOC, AS, CT

      Dissent: [DS] & JPS, RBG, SGB; [JPS] & RBG, SGB, DS (in part)

    35. Cook v. Gralike (99-929http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-929.htm) (4/17; 11/6; 2/28) (CA8; Affirm; 9-0) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-929.pdf
    36. A state may not direct federal elected officials to vote for term limits and note noncompliance on the ballot.

      Class: general civil; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [JPS] & AS, AMK, RBG, SGB & DS [in part] & CT [in part]

      Concurrence: [AMK]; [CT] in part and in the judgment; [WHR] (in judgment) & SOC

    37. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns. (99-1257http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1257.htm & 99-1426) (5/22; 11/7; 2/27) (CADC; Aff/Rev in part; 9-0) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1257.pdf
    38. The Clean Air Actÿs provision for setting particulate levels is not an unconstitutional delegation and the EPA may not consider costs in setting clear air standards.

      Class: general civil; business; statutory and constitutional

      Majority: [AS] & WHR, SOC, AMK, CT, RBG & JPS, DS (in part) & SGB (in part)

      Concurrences: [CT]; [JPS] (in part and judgment) & DS; [SGB] (in part and judgment)

    39. United States v. Mead Corp. (99-1434http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1434.htm) (5/30; 11/8) (CAFC)
    40. QP: What deference is owed to Customs Service classification rulings?

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

    41. Egelhoff v. Egelhoff (99-1529http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1529.htm) (6/19; 11/8; 3/21) (WA; Rev.; 7-2) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1529.pdf
    42. ERISA preempts "divorce revocation" statutes.

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

      Majority: [CT] & WHR, SOC, AS, AMK, DS, RBG

      Dissent: [SGB] & JPS

      DECEMBER SITTING: WEEK NO. 1 -

    43. Hunt v. Cromartie (99-1864http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1864.htm & 99-1865) (6/26; 11/27; 4/18) (EDNC; Rev.; 5-4) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1864.pdf
    44. The district courtÿs findings that race predominated in this district were clearly erroneous.

      Class: civil rights; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [SGB] & JPS, SOC, DS, RBG

      Dissent: [CT] & WHR, AS, AMK

    45. Glover v. United States (99-8576http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-8576.htm) (6/26; 11/27; 1/9) (CA7; Reverse; Unan.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-8576.pdf
    46. Any sentencing enhancement constitutes "prejudice" for purposes of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

      Class: criminal; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [AMK] & unanimous

    47. City News & Novelty v. Waukesha, WI (99-1680http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1680.htm) (6/19; 11/28; 1/18) (WI; Dismiss; Unan.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1680.pdf
    48. This case is moot.

      Class: civil rights; business; constitutional

      Majority: [RBG] & unanimous

    49. Director Rev. of MO v. CoBank (99-1792http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1792.htm) (6/26; 11/28; 2/20) (MO; Rev.; Unan.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1792.pdf
    50. Banks for cooperatives under the farm credit system institutions are subject to state taxes.

      Class: general civil; business; constitutional

      Majority: [CT] & unanimous

    51. Traffix Devices v. Mktg. Displays (99-1571http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1571.htm) (6/26; 11/29; 3/20) (CA6; Rev.; Unan.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1571.pdf
    52. Trade dress protection does not extend to product configuration covered by an expired utility patent.

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

      Majority: [AMK] & unanimous

    53. Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine (99-1331http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1331.htm) (5/30; 11/29; 2/21) (CA8; Rev.; Unan.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1331.pdf
    54. State court may adjudicate claims that fall within the savings to suitors clause of 28 USC 1333(1) so long as the vesselÿs ownerÿs right to seek limitation of liability is protected.

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

      Majority: [SOC] & Unanimous

      DECEMBER SITTING: WEEK NO. 2 -

    55. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffsÿ Lgl. Comm. (98-1768http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/98-1768.htm) (6/29; 12/4; 2/21) (CA3; Rev.; 9-0) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/98-1768.pdf
    56. "Fraud on the agency" claims are preempted by the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

      Majority: [WHR] & SOC, AS, AMK, DS, RBG, SGB

      Concurrence: [JPS] & CT (in judgment)

    57. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (99-1408http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1408.htm) (6/26; 12/4; 4/24) (CA5; Aff.; 5-4) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1408.pdf
    58. The Fourth Amendment permits custodial arrests for fine-only offenses.

      Class: civil rights; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [DS] & WHR, AS, AMK, CT

      Dissent: [SOC] & JPS, RBG, SGB

    59. Semtek Intÿl v. Lockheed Mart. Corp. (99-1551http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1551.htm) (6/26; 12/5; 2/27) (MD; Rev.; Unan.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1551.pdf
    60. The res judicata effect of a statute of limitations dismissal by a federal court sitting in diversity is governed by state law.

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

      Majority: [AS] & Unanimous

    61. Bartnicki v. Vopper (99-1687http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1728.htm [& 99-1728]) (6/26; 12/5; 5/21) (CA3; Aff.; 6-3) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1687.pdf
    62. The First Amendment privileges disclosure of the contents of an unlawful wiretap by someone not involved in the interception if the information is of public importance.

      Class: civil rights; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [JPS] & SOC, AMK, DS, RBG, SGB

      Concurrence: [SGB] & SOC

      Dissent: [WHR] & AS, CT

       

      DECEMBER INTERIM CASES -

    63. Bush v. Palm Beach County Canv. Bd. (00-836http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-836.htm) (11/24; 12/1; 12/4) (FL; Rev. Unan.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-836.pdf
    64. The Florida Supreme Court must clarify the relationship of its decision to 3 U.S.C. þ 5 and Article II.

      Class: civil rights; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [PC] & unanimous

    65. Bush v. Gore (00-949http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-949.htm) (12/9; 12/11; 12/12) (FL; Rev.; 5-4) http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf
    66. The Florida recounts violate Equal Protection and cannot proceed.

      Class: civil rights; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [PC]: WHR, AS, SOC, AMK, CT

      Concurrence: [WHR] & AS, CT

      Dissents: [JPS] & RBG, SGB

      [DS] & SGB & [in part] JPS, RBG

      [RBG] & JPS & [in part] DS, SGB

      [SGB] & JPS & [in part] RBG & [in separate part] DS

      JANUARY SITTING: WEEK NO. 1 -

    67. Daniels v. United States (99-9136http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-9136.htm) (9/8; 1/8; 4/25) (CA9; Aff.; 5-4) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-9136.pdf
    68. A defendant under þ 2255 may not challenge a state sentence used as a sentencing enhancement.

      Class: criminal; non-business; statutory

      Majority: [SOC] & WHR, AMK, CT & AS [in part]

      Concur: [AS]

      Dissent: [DS] & JPS, RBG; [SGB]

    69. Buford v. United States (99-9073http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-9073.htm) (9/26; 1/8; 3/20) (CA7; Aff.; Unan.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-9073.pdf
    70. Abuse of discretion review applies to a district courtÿs determination that convictions are "related" under the Sentencing Guidelines.

      Class: criminal; non-business; statutory

      Majority: [SGB] & unanimous

    71. Nguyen v. INS (99-2071http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-2071.htm) (9/26; 1/9) (CA5)
    72. QP: May the government constitutionally distinguish between out-of-wedlock children of U.S. citizen mothers and fathers in citizenship determinations?

      Class: civil rights; non-business; constitutional

    73. Shafer v. South Carolina (00-5250http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-5250.htm) (9/26; 1/9; 3/20) (SC; Rev.; 7-2) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-5250.pdf
    74. A death-eligible defendant has the right to inform the jury that he would be parole ineligible if the juryÿs verdict could lead to life without parole.

      Class: criminal; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [RBG] & WHR, JPS, SOC, AMK, DS, SGB

      Dissent: [AS]; [CT]

    75. Dept. of Interior v. Klamath Water Users (99-1871http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1871.htm) (9/26; 1/10; 3/5) (CA9; Aff.; Unan.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1871.pdf
    76. The governmentÿs communications with Indian tribes are not exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.

      Class: general civil; non-business; statutory

      Majority: [DS] & unanimous

       

       

      JANUARY SITTING: WEEK NO. 2 -

    77. Shaw v. Murphy (99-1613http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1613.htm) (9/26; 1/16; 4/18) (CA9; Rev.; Unan.)http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1613.pdf
    78. A prisoner has no First Amendment right to provide another prisoner with legal assistance.

      Class: criminal; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [CT] & unanimous

      Concurrence: [RBG]

    79. Alexander v. Sandoval (99-1908http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1908.htm) (9/26; 1/16; 4/24) (CA11; Rev.; 5-4)http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1908.pdf
    80. There is no implied right of action to enforce disparate impact regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

      Class: civil rights, non-business; statutory

      Majority: [AS] & WHR, SOC, AMK, CT

      Dissent: [JPS] & DS, RBG, SGB

    81. Texas v. Cobb (99-1702http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1702.htm) (6/26; 1/16; 4/1) (TX; Rev.; 5-4)http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1702.pdf
    82. The Sixth Amendment attaches to all charged offenses as defined by the Blockburger test.

      Class: criminal; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [WHR] & SOC, AS, AMK, CT

      Concur: [AMK] & AS, CT

      Dissent: [SGB] & JPS, DS, RBG

    83. PGA Tour v. Martin (00-24http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-24.htm) (9/26; 1/17) (CA9)
    84. QP: How does the ADA apply to professional athletics?

      Class: civil rights; business; statutory

      FEBRUARY SITTING: WEEK NO. 1 -

    85. Kyllo v. United States (99-8508http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-8508.htm) (9/26; 2/20) (CA9)
    86. QP: Does use of a thermal imaging machine constitute a "search"?

      Class: criminal; non-business; constitutional

    87. Lackawanna County, PA v. Coss (99-1884http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1884.htm) (10/10; 2/20; 4/25) (CA3; Rev.; 5-4) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1884.pdf
    88. A petitioner under þ 2254 may not challenge a previous state conviction used to enhance a subsequent conviction.

      Class: criminal; non-business; statutory

      Majority: [SOC] & WHR, AMK, CT [in part] & AS [in separate part]

      Dissent: [DS] & JPS, RBG; [SGB]

    89. United States v. Hatter (99-1978http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1978.htm) (10/16; 2/20; 5/21) (CAFC; Aff/Rev; 5-2) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1978.pdf
    90. Applicat of medicare taxes, but not social security taxes, to judges violated the Compensation Clause.

      Class: general civil; non-business; constitutional

      Majority: [SGB] & WHR, AMK, DS, RBG, AS (in part)

      Dissent: [AS] (in part); [CT] (in part)

      Recused: JPS, SOC

    91. Reno v. Ma (00-38http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-38.htm) (& 99-7791, Zadvydas v. Underdown http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-7791.htm) (10/10; 2/21) (CA9, CA5)
    92. QP: For how long may the government detain a non-deportable alien?

      Class: criminal; non-business; statutory and constitutional

    93. NLRB v. Kentucky River Comm. Care (99-1815http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1815.htm) (9/26; 2/21) (CA6)
    94. QP: Are nursing home nurses "supervisors" for purposes of the NLRA?

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

       

       

      FEBRUARY SITTING: WEEK NO. 2 -

    95. Cooper Indus. v. Leatherman Tool Gr. (99-2035http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-2035.htm) (10/10; 2/26; 5/14) (CA9; Rev.; 8-1)http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-2035.pdf
    96. De novo appellate review applies to a trial courtÿs ruling on a challenge to a punitive damages award.

      Class: general civil; business; constitutional

      Majority: [JPS] & WHR, SOC, AMK, DS, CT, SGB

      Concurrence: [CT]; [AS] (in judgment)

      Dissent: [RBG]

    97. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (99-2047http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-2047.htm) (10/10; 2/26) (RI)
    98. QP: Does a pre-existing regulation bar a regulatory takings claim?

      Class: general civil; business; constitutional

    99. Lujan v. G&G Fire Sprinklers (00-152http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-152.htm) (10/10; 2/26; 4/17) (CA9; Rev.; Unan.)http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-152.pdf
    100. Schemes for paying government contractors trigger do not due process protections when a standard breach of contract action is available.

      Class: general civil; business; constitutional

      Majority: [WHR] & Unan.

    101. Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. West Va. Dept. of HHS (99-1848http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1848.htm) (9/26; 2/27) (CA4)
    102. QP: Is the "catalyst theory" still available for plaintiffs to recover attorneysÿ fees?

      Class: civil rights; business; statutory

    103. United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co. (00-203http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-203.htm) (10/16; 2/27; 4/17) (CA6; Rev.; Unan.)http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-203.pdf
    104. Back wages are taxed for purposes of the Federal Insurance Contribution Act and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act by reference to the year of payment.

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

      Majority: [RBG] & WHR, JPS, SOC, AMK, DS, CT, SGB

      Concurrence: [AS] in judgment

    105. Good News Club v. Milford Central Sch. (99-2036http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-2036.htm) (10/10; 2/28) (CA2)
    106. QP: May schools make their facilities available only to non-religious groups?

      Class: civil rights; non-business; constitutional

    107. FEC v. Colorado Repub. Fed. Campaign Comm. (00-191http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-191.htm) (10/10; 2/28) (CA10)
    108. QP: Is the party expenditure provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act constitutional?

      Class: general civil; non-business; constitutional

      MARCH SITTING: WEEK NO. 1 -

    109. Kansas v. Colorado (Orig. 105) (3/19)
    110. C&L Enters. v. Citizen Bank Potawatomi Indian Tribe (00-292http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-292.htm) (10/30; 3/19) (Okla.)
    111. QP: Does an arbitration agreement waive tribal sovereign immunity?

      Class: general civil; business; constitutional

    112. Saucier v. Katz (99-1977http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1977.htm) (11/13; 3/20) (CA9)
    113. QP: Does a finding of use of unreasonable force precluding finding qualified immunity, and was there unreasonable force in this case?

      Class: civil rights; non-business; statutory

    114. Booth v. Churner (99-1964http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1964.htm) (10/30; 3/20) (CA3)
    115. QP: Must prisoners exhaust administrative remedies when they seek only monetary damages?

      Class: civil rights; non-business; statutory

    116. Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United Intÿl (00-347http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-347.htm) (11/6; 3/21; 5/21) (CA10; Aff.; Unan.)http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-347.pdf
    117. A secret intent not to honor an oral option violates Section 10(b).

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

      Majority: [SGB] & Unanimous

    118. Nevada v. Hicks (99-1994http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1994.htm) (10/10; 3/21) (CA9)
    119. QP: When do tribal courts have jurisdiction over state officials for on-reservation conduct?

      Class: general civil; non-business; constitutional

       

      MARCH SITTING: WEEK NO. 2 -

    120. United Dominion Indus. v. United States (00-157http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-157.htm) (11/27; 3/26) (CA4)
    121. QP: How should product liability losses be carried back for tax purposes?

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

    122. Duncan v. Walker (00-121http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-121.htm) (11/13; 3/26) (CA2)
    123. QP: Is AEDPAÿs statute of limitations tolled while a prior federal habeas petition is pending?

      Class: criminal; non-business; statutory

    124. Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley (00-454http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-454.htm) (11/27; 3/27) (CA10)
    125. QP: May Indian tribes tax transactions between non-Indians on privately held lands surrounded by reservation?

      Class: general civil; business; constitutional

    126. Penry v. Johnson (00-6677http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-6677.htm) (11/27; 3/27) (CA5)
    127. QP: How must a capital penalty phase jury be able to consider mitigating circumstances of mental retardation and abuse? Is a court-appointed psychiatrist a state actor for purpose of the right to remain silent?

      Class: criminal; non-business; constitutional

    128. The New York Times Co. v. Tasini (00-201http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-201.htm) (11/6; 3/28) (CA2)
    129. QP: Does the "revision" privilege of the Copyright Act encompass publication in electronic databases?

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

    130. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyersÿ Coop. (00-151http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-151.htm) (11/27; 3/28; 51/4) (CA9; Rev.; 8-0)http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-151.pdf
    131. The Controlled Substances Act bans the distribution of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

      Class: general civil; non-business; statutory

      Majority: [CT] & WHR, SOC, AS, AMK

      Concur: [JPS] & DS, RBG (in judgment)

      Recuse: SGB

      APRIL SITTING: WEEK 1 -

    132. Becker v. Montgomery (00-6374http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-6374.htm) (1/8; 4/16) (CA6)
    133. QP: Does a timely but unsigned certificate of appealability satisfy FRAP 4(a)?

      Class: criminal; non-business; statutory

    134. Tyler v. Cain (00-5961http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-5961.htm) (12/11; 4/16) (CA5)
    135. QP: Does Cage v. Louisiana apply retroactively on habeas?

      Class: criminal; non-business; constitutional

    136. New Hampshire v. Maine (Orig. 130) (4/16)
    137. United States v. United Foods (00-276http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-276.htm) (11/27; 4/17) (CA6)
    138. QP: May the government require payment of an advertising assessment by mushroom growers and importers?

      Class: civil rights; business; constitutional

    139. Alabama v. Bozeman (00-492http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-492.htm) (12/11; 4/17) (Ala.)
    140. QP: Does a one-day transfer of a prisoner in violation of the Interstate Agreement of Detainers require dismissal of charges?

      Class: criminal; non-business; statutory

    141. Cedric Kushner Proms. v. King (00-549http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-549.htm) (12/11; 4/18) (CA2)
    142. QP: Must the "person" be distinct from the "enterprise" under RICO?

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

    143. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Garris (00-346http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-346.htm) (12/11; 4/18) (CA4)
    144. QP: Is there a general maritime negligence cause of action for wrongful death?

      Class: general civil; business; statutory

      APRIL SITTING: WEEK 2 -

    145. Idaho v. United States (00-189http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-189.htm) (12/11; 4/23) (CA9)
    146. QP: Has Congress defeated a Stateÿs title to certain submerged lands?

      Class: general civil; non-business; statutory

    147. Pollard v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (00-763http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-763.htm) (1/8; 4/23) (CA6)
    148. QP: Is front pay an element of compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. þ 1981a?

      Class: civil rights; business; statutory

    149. Calcano-Martinez v. INS (00-1011http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-1011.htm) (1/12; 4/24) (CA2)
    150. QP: If district courts do not have habeas jurisdiction over final removal orders, is the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act unconstitutional?

      Class: criminal; non-business; constitutional

    151. INS v. St. Cyr (00-767http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-767.htm) (1/12; 4/24) (CA2)
    152. QP: Do district courts have habeas jurisdiction over final removal orders?

      Class: criminal; non-business; statutory

    153. Lorrilard v. Reilley (00-596http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-596.htm) (1/8; 4/25) (CA1) (& 00-597)
    154. QP: Are restrictions on tobacco advertising preempted by federal law or violative of the First Amendment?

      Class: general civil; business; statutory and constitutional

    155. Florida v. Thomas (00-391http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-391.htm) (1/8; 4/25) (FL)

QP: Does New York v. Belton apply when a vehicleÿs driver exits the car voluntarily and walks away from the vehicle?

Class: criminal; non-business; constitutional

 

NON-ARGUED CASES

Fiore v. White (98-942) (3/29/99; 10/12/99 (then certified); 1/9) (CA3; Reverse)

States cannot convict someone on a nonexistent charge.

Class: criminal; non-business; constitutional

Majority: [PC] & unanimous

SUMMARY REVERSALS

Sinkfield v. Kelley (00-132http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-132.htm) (11/27) (M.D. Ala.)

-standing in racial gerrymandering cases

Ohio v. Reiner (00-1028http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-1028.htm) (3/19) (OH)

-Fifth Amendment immunity rights of witnesses

Clark County, NV v. Breeden (00-866http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-866.htm)

-trigger for Title VII liability

Major League Baseball Playersÿ Assÿn v. Garvey (00-1210http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-1210.pdf) (CA9) [8-1]

-review of arbitratorsÿ ruling

 

SUMMARY AFFIRMANCES

Virginia v. Reno (00-862) (1/8) (D.D.C.)

-use of census figures

Class: civil rights; non-business; statutory

CASES DISMISSED WITHOUT OPINION

GTE Serv. Corp. v. FCC (99-1244http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1244.htm) (6/5; 12/6) (CA5)

QP: How should costs be allocated under 1996 Telecommunications Act?

Class: general civil; business; statutory

Reynolds Metal v. Ellis (99-1787http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1787.htm) (11/27; 12/29) (CA9)

QP: May an ERISA plan fiduciary seek reimbursement from a participant under 29 USC þ 1132(a)(3)?

Class: general civil; business; statutory

Murphy v. Beck (00-46http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-46.htm) (9/26; 1/12) (CA11)

QP: Has the DÿOench, Duhme doctrine been superceded by FIRREA?

Class general civil; business; statutory

District of Columbia v. Tri County Indus. (99-1953http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-1953.htm) (9/26; 1/10) (CADC)

QP: How should appellate courts review district courtsÿ new trial orders?

Class: general civil; non-business; constitutional