|
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 [Courts 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 prisoners
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 Courts 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 statutes effective
date but the application for habeas relief itself was filed
after the statutes effective date.
Criminal, Non-Business, Statutory
Majority: [CT] & WHR, JPS, AS, AMK
Concurrence: [SOC] [Majoritys rule that AEDPAs 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 [Petitioners 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 AEDPAs 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 Citys 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 corporations
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
Maines 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
|
|