Return to Home
 

 


2002 Supreme Court Docket Summary
— By Thomas Goldstein

2002 Monthly Sittings: Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Summ Rev | Dismissed

 October 2002 Case List As of June 26, 2002
Cases decided after argument: 73
Summary reversals: 8 ll Summary affirmances: 5 ll Dismissed cases: 6

—JANUARY SITTING—
  • Archer v. Warner (01-1418) (6/24; 1/13; 3/31) (CA4; Rev.; 7-2)
    Decision; Docket; Findlaw
    A debt for money promised in a settlement agreement accompanied by the release of underlying tort claims can amount to a nondischargeable debt under the Bankruptcy Code.
    General Civil, Business, Statutory
    Majority: [SGB] & WHR, SOC, AS, AMK, DS, RBG,
    Dissent: [CT] & JPS [Court’s conclusion is supported neither by the text of the Bankruptcy Code nor by any of the agreements executed by the parties.]
  • Clay v. United States (01-1500) (6/28; 1/13, 3/4) (CA7; Rev; Unan.)
    Decision; Docket; Findlaw
    For the purpose of starting the clock on a federal prisoner’s one-year limitation period to file a habeas corpus application, a judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires for filing a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
    Criminal, Non-Business, Statutory
    Opinion: [RBG] & Unan.
  • Cook County, IL v. U.S. ex rel. Chandler (01-1572) (6/28; 1/14; 3/10) (CA7; Aff.; Unan.)
    Decision; Docket; Findlaw
    Local governments are "persons " amenable to qui tam actions under the False Claims Act.
    General Civil, Non-Business, Statutory
    Opinion: [DS] & Unan.
  • Kentucky Assoc. of Health Plans, Inc. v. Miller (00-1471) (6/28; 1/14; 4/2) (CA6; Aff.; Unan.)
    Opinion; Docket; Findlaw
    Kentucky's "any willing provider" law, which requires each health maintenance organization (HMO) in the state to make available to its subscribers the services of any medical provider in its geographical region that agrees to its terms and conditions, is a law that "regulates insurance" and therefore is not preempted by ERISA.
    General Civil, Business, Statutory
    Opinion: [AS] & Unan.
  • Demore v. Kim (01-1491) (6/28; 1/15) (CA9; Rev.; 5-4)
    Decision; Docket; Findlaw
    The INS may detain deportable aliens pending their removal proceedings consistent with due process.
    Criminal, Non-Business, Constitutional
    Opinion: [WHR] & AMK, JPS, DS, RBG, SGB (as to Part I); & SOC, AS, CT, AMK (as to Part II).
    Concurrences: [AMK] [Due Process Clause applies to lawful permanent resident aliens, and may require individualized determination of dangerousness if
    detention is prolonged]
    in part and in the judgment [SOC] & AS, CT [Courts do not have jurisdiction to review INS detention of deportable aliens under the
    Immigration and Nationality Act]
    in part and dissenting in part [DS] & JPS, RBG [INS detention violates due process
    in part and dissenting in part [SGB].
  • Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs (01-1368) (6/24; 1/15;5/27) (CA9; Aff.; 6-3)
    Decision; Docket; Findlaw
    The family medical care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 validly abrogates the states’ sovereign immunity.
    General Civil, Non-Business, Constitutional
    Majority: [WHR], SOC, DS, RBG, SGB
    Concurrence: [DS], RBG, SB [Joins with the Court but does not concede the correctness of the Court’s sovereign immunity doctrines]
    [JPS] [Does not think that FMLA is needed to achieve the objectives of the 14th Amendment. Only common-law sovereign immunity defense applies here because respondents are citizens of Nevada. Clearly stated Congressional intent to abrogate common-law sovereign immunity defense is enough to eliminate sovereign immunity defense]
    Dissent: [AS] [All 50 states did not have the history of discrimination required to justify the FMLA as a Section 5 remedial power. Must show that Nevada was a bad actor.]
    [AMK] AS, CT [FLMA is invalid because it allows private suits against non-consenting states. General evidence of gender discrimination in employment is not enough to justify the remedial power in the FLMA. Discrimination claims are too attenuated.]
  • Woodford v. Garceau (01-1862) (10/01; 01/21; 3/25) (CA9; Rev.; 6-3)
    Decision; Docket; Findlaw
    The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) applies to cases in which motions for the appointment of counsel and a stay of execution were filed before the statute’s effective date but the application for habeas relief itself was filed after the statute’s effective date.
    Criminal, Non-Business, Statutory
    Majority: [CT] & WHR, JPS, AS, AMK
    Concurrence: [SOC] [Majority’s rule that AEDPA’s amendments would not apply if the petitioner had an application for habeas relief seeking an adjudication on the merits before the effective date of the amendments is misapplied here, where petitioner did have a motion that should be considered on the merits of his petition; however, the text of the statute provides that it only applies where an application for a writ of habeas corpus has been made. Thus, a case is only pending once the petitioner has applied for a writ of habeas corpus.]
    Dissent: [DS] & RBG, SGB [Petitioner’s habeas case became pending when the district court first had cause to consider the merits of the claim, which was six months before the effective date of AEDPA’s amendments.]
  • Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation (01-1269) (6/24; 1/21; 3/25) (CA6; Rev.; Unan.)
    Decision; Docket; Findlaw
    Where state officials follow non-discretionary procedures in placing citizens’ referendum on the ballot, discriminatory intent on the part of state officials is not shown by the intent of citizens initiating the referendum. Moreover, subjecting the ordinance to the City’s referendum process did not constitute arbitrary government conduct in violation of substantive due process.
    General Civil, Non-Business, Statutory & Constitutional
    Opinion: [SOC] & Unan.
    Concurrence: [AS] & CT [Even if there had been arbitrary government conduct, that alone would not establish a substantive due process claim.]
  • Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson (01-593 & 01-594) (6/28; 1/22;4/23) (CA9; Aff.; 7-2)
    Decision; Docket & 01-594; Findlaw
    A foreign state must itself own a majority of a corporation’s shares if the corporation is to be deemed an instrumentality of the state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Instrumentality status is determined at the time of the filing of the complaint.
    General Civil, Business, Statutory
    Opinion: [AMK] & Unan. As to Part I, II A, II C; [AMK], AS, CT, WHR, JPS, DS, RBG As to Part II B
    Concurrence in part and dissent in part: [SGB] & SOC. [Sovereign immunity defense should be allowed for a foreign corporation that is a subsidiary to a Parent corporation if the foreign state owns the Parent company.]
  • Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America v. Walsh (01-188) (6/28; 1/22;5/19) (CA1; Aff.; 6-3)
    Decision; Docket; Findlaw
    Maine’s Medicaid rebate statute (Maine Rx), which subjects drug companies that do not enter into rebate agreements with the state to a "prior authorization procedure," does not violate the Commerce Clause. The evidence currently available demonstrates that Maine Rx is not preempted by the Medicaid statute.
    General Civil, Business, Constitutional
    Majority: [JPS], WHR, SOC, AMK, DS, RBG, SGB [As to Parts I, II, III, VI]
    Plurality: [JPS], DS, RBG, SGB [As to Parts IV, VII]; [JPS], DS, RBG [As to Part V]
    Concurrences: in judgment [AS] [Preemption claim ca only be raised administratively]
    in judgment [CT] [Further proceedings in this case will not lead to a contrary result. The Health Secretary has thus far allowed the program to continue, undermining the preemption claim]
    in part and in judgment [SGB] [The district court should defer to the Secretary of HHS to review the program]
    in part and dissents in part [SOC], WHR, AMK [Medicaid preempts Maine Rx    .]
2002 Monthly Sittings: Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Summ Rev | Dismissed