PREVIEW of United States Supreme Court Cases offers expert analysis of the issues, background, and significance of every case slated for argument in the Supreme Court.
As part of our comprehensive coverage, the following briefs are now available online:
12-1497 Kellog Brown & Root v. United States
1. Whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act--a criminal code provision that tolls the statute of limitations for "any offense" involving fraud against the government "[w]hen the United States is at war," 18 U.S.C. § 3287, and which this Court has instructed must be "narrowly construed" in favor of repose--applies to claims of civil fraud brought by private relators, and is triggered without a formal declaration of war, in a manner that leads to indefinite tolling.
1. Whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act--a criminal code provision that tolls the statute of limitations for "any offense" involving fraud against the government "[w]hen the United States is at war," 18 U.S.C. § 3287, and which this Court has instructed must be "narrowly construed" in favor of repose--applies to claims of civil fraud brought by private relators, and is triggered without a formal declaration of war, in a manner that leads to indefinite tolling.
2. Whether, contrary to the conclusion of numerous courts, the False Claims Act's so called "first-to-file" bar, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5)--which creates a race to the courthouse to reward relators who promptly disclose fraud against the government, while prohibiting repetitive, parasitic claims--functions as a "one-case-at-a-time" rule allowing an infinite series of duplicative claims so long as no prior claim is pending at the time of filing.
13-352 B&B Hardware Inc., v. Hargis Industries, Inc.
1. Whether the TTAB's finding of a likelihood of confusion precludes Hargis from relitigating that issue in infringement litigation, in which likelihood of confusion is an element.
2. Whether, if issue preclusion does not apply, the district court was obliged to defer to the TTAB's finding of a likelihood of confusion absent strong evidence to rebut it.
1. Whether the TTAB's finding of a likelihood of confusion precludes Hargis from relitigating that issue in infringement litigation, in which likelihood of confusion is an element.
2. Whether, if issue preclusion does not apply, the district court was obliged to defer to the TTAB's finding of a likelihood of confusion absent strong evidence to rebut it.
13-433 Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk
Is time spent in security screenings compensable under the FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act?
Is time spent in security screenings compensable under the FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act?
13-435 Omnicare, Inc., et. al. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, et al.
May a plaintiff plead that a statement of opinion was "untrue" merely by alleging that the opinion itself was objectively wrong, as the Sixth Circuit has concluded, or must the plaintiff also allege that the statement was subjectively false-requiring allegations that the speaker's actual opinion was different from the one expressed-as the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits have held?
May a plaintiff plead that a statement of opinion was "untrue" merely by alleging that the opinion itself was objectively wrong, as the Sixth Circuit has concluded, or must the plaintiff also allege that the statement was subjectively false-requiring allegations that the speaker's actual opinion was different from the one expressed-as the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits have held?
- Brief for AARP in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Common Law Scholars in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Institutional Investors in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Occupy the SEC in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Professors at Law and Business Schools in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Public Citizen, Inc., in Support of Respondents
- Brief for the Wyoming Retirement System and the Indiana Public Retirement System in Support of Respondents
13-517 Warger v. Shauers
Does Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) permit a party moving for a new trial based on juror dishonesty during voir dire to introduce juror testimony about statements made during deliberations that tend to show the alleged dishonesty?
Does Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) permit a party moving for a new trial based on juror dishonesty during voir dire to introduce juror testimony about statements made during deliberations that tend to show the alleged dishonesty?
13-1019 Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC
Whether and to what extent may a court enforce the EEOC's mandatory duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit?
Whether and to what extent may a court enforce the EEOC's mandatory duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit?
13-1174 Gelboim, et. al. v. Bank of America Corp.
Whether and in what circumstances is the dismissal of an action that has been consolidated with other suits immediately appealable?
Whether and in what circumstances is the dismissal of an action that has been consolidated with other suits immediately appealable?
13-1211 Hana Financial v. Hana Bank
May the jury or the court determine whether use of an older mark may be tacked to a newer one?
May the jury or the court determine whether use of an older mark may be tacked to a newer one?
13-9026 Whitfield v. United States
Whether § 2113(e)'s forced-accompaniment offense requires proof of more than a de minimis movement of the victim.
Whether § 2113(e)'s forced-accompaniment offense requires proof of more than a de minimis movement of the victim.
- Brief for Petitioner, Larry Whitfield
- Brief for the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner
No comments:
Post a Comment