2002 Supreme Court Docket Summary
— By Thomas Goldstein

• INS v. Ventura (02-29) (11/4) (CA9)
  Decision; Docket
  The court below should have remanded the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals, rather than decide an issue that the BIA had not considered below.
  General Civil; Non-Business; Statutory
  Per Curiam
  
  
• Early v. Packer (01-1765) (11/4) (CA9)
  Decision; Docket
  A decision that "fails to apply" established Supreme Court precedent is not "contrary to" such precedent such that habeas corpus relief should be granted under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d).
  Criminal; Non-Business; Statutory
  Per Curiam
  
  
• Woodford v. Visciotti (02-137) (11/4) (CA9)
  Decision; Docket
  The state court’s use of the term "probable" rather than "reasonably probable" did not indicate it was applying a higher standard than that required by Strickland v. Washington as to the prejudice that defendant must show in order to obtain habeas relief. The state court’s determination that the defendant suffered no prejudice from inadequate assistance of counsel was not unreasonable.
  Criminal; Non-Business; Statutory
  Per Curiam
  
  
• The Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., (02—1295)(6/2)(AL. SC)
  Decision; Docket
  The parties’ debt-restructuring agreement is "a contract evidencing a trans-action involving commerce" within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). There is a sufficient nexus with interstate commerce to make enforceable, pursuant to the FAA, an arbitration provision included in that agreement.
  General Civil; Business; Statutory
  Per Curiam.
  
  
• Clyde Timothy Bunkley v. Florida (02—8636)(5/27)(Fla. SC)
  Decision; Docket
  The Florida Supreme Court erred when it failed to determine whether the "common pocketknife" exception to Florida’s definition of a "‘[w]eapon’" encompassed Bunkley’s pocket-knife at the time that his conviction became final in 1989.
  Criminal; Non-Business
  Per Curiam.
  
  
• City Of Los Angeles v. David (02—1212)(5/19)(St Ct Ap, 9th Cir)
  Decision; Docket
  A 30-day delay in holding a hearing for a parking ticket doe not violated the Due Process Clause.
  General Civil; Non-Business
  Per Curiam.
  
  
• Robert Kaupp v. Texas (02—5636)(5/5)(CA Texas, 14th District)
  Decision; Docket
  A teenager’s confession was the product of an illegal arrest and should not have been introduced at his trial.
  Criminal; Non-Business
  Per Curiam.

—DISMISSED CASES—

• Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley (01-896) (2/19; 10/7; DIG 10/15) (CA9)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  May the cost to a defendant of complying with an injunction sought by a plaintiffs' class satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement of the federal diversity statute, when such compliance would cost the defendant more than the $75,000 minimum whether it covered the entire class or any single member of class?
  General Civil; Non-Business; Statutory
  
  
• Abdur'Rahman v. Bell (01-9094) (4/22; 11/6, DIG 12/10) (CA6)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  a.  Did the 6th Circuit err in holding, in square conflict with decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and other circuits, that every Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion constitutes a prohibited "second or successive" habeas petition as a matter of law?
  b.  Does a court of appeals abuse its discretion in refusing to permit consideration of a vital intervening legal development when its failure to do so precludes a habeas petitioner from ever receiving any adjudication of his claims on the merits?
  Dismissed as improvidently granted.
  Criminal, Non-Business, Statutory
  [Per Curiam]
  
  
• United States Dept. of the Treasury, ATF Bureau v. Chicago (02-322) (11/12; 3/4) (CA7)
  Docket; Findlaw
  Vacated and remanded.
  Does this Court have jurisdiction to review the Eleventh Circuit's decision affirming the dismissal of a Sec. 2255 petition for writ of habeas corpus as second or successive?
  Criminal; Non-Business; Statutory
  
  
• Zapata Indus., Inc. v. W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. (No. 01-1766) (10/01; Dismissed Rule 46 11/07) (CA FC)
  Docket; Findlaw
  Whether the 14-day deadline for filing a notice of cross-appeal in rule 4(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is mandatory and jurisdictional or, instead, a rule of practice permitting the appellate court to consider a late-filed cross-appeal where there is excusable neglect and no prejudice occurs.
  General Civil; Non-Business; Statutory
  
  
• Medical Board of CA v. Hason (02-479) (11/18; 3/25)(CA9)
  Docket http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/02-479.htm; Findlaw http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2002/march.html#02-479
  Does the Eleventh Amendment bar suit under Title II of the ADA against the California Medical Board for denial of a medical license based on the applicant's mental illness?
  General Civil, Non-Business, Constitutional
  
  
• Nike, Inc. v. Kasky (02-575) (1/13; 4/23)(Calif)
  Docket; Findlaw
  a.  When a corporation participates in a public debate — writing letters to newspaper editors and to educators and publishing communications addressed to the general public on issues of great political, social, and economic importance — may it be subjected to liability for factual inaccuracies on the theory that its statements are "commercial speech" because they might affect consumers' opinions about the business as a good corporate citizen and thereby affect their purchasing decisions?
  b.   Even assuming the California Supreme Court properly characterized such statements as "commercial speech," does the First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, permit subjecting speakers to the legal regime approved by that court in the decision below?
  General Civil, Business, Constitutional]