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:
12-1226 Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Whether, and in what circumstances, an employer that provides work accommodations to nonpregnant employees with work limitations must provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."
Whether, and in what circumstances, an employer that provides work accommodations to nonpregnant employees with work limitations must provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."
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.
13-485 Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne
Does the United States Constitution prohibit a state from taxing all the income of its residents-wherever earned-by mandating a credit for taxes paid on income earned in other states?
Does the United States Constitution prohibit a state from taxing all the income of its residents-wherever earned-by mandating a credit for taxes paid on income earned in other states?
13-553 Alabama Department of Revenue and Julie Magee v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
Whether a State "discriminates against a rail carrier" in violation of 49 U.S.C. §11501(b)(4) when the State generally requires commercial and industrial businesses, including rail carriers, to pay a sales-and-use tax but grants exemptions from the tax to the railroads' competitors.
Whether a State "discriminates against a rail carrier" in violation of 49 U.S.C. §11501(b)(4) when the State generally requires commercial and industrial businesses, including rail carriers, to pay a sales-and-use tax but grants exemptions from the tax to the railroads' competitors.
13-894 Department of Homeland Security v. Robert J. MacLean
Whether certain statutory protections codified at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)(A), which are inapplicable when an employee makes a disclosure "specifically prohibited by law," can bar an agency from taking an enforcement action against an employee who intentionally discloses Sensitive Security Information.
Whether certain statutory protections codified at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)(A), which are inapplicable when an employee makes a disclosure "specifically prohibited by law," can bar an agency from taking an enforcement action against an employee who intentionally discloses Sensitive Security Information.
13-895 and 13-1138 Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference, et al., v. The State of Alabama, et al.
(13-895)
Whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts.
(13-1138)
(a). Whether, as the dissenting Judge concluded, this effort amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota and racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny and that was not justified by the putative interest of complying with the non-retrogression aspect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
(b). Whether these plaintiffs have standing to bring such a constitutional claim?
(13-895)
Whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts.
(13-1138)
(a). Whether, as the dissenting Judge concluded, this effort amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota and racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny and that was not justified by the putative interest of complying with the non-retrogression aspect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
(b). Whether these plaintiffs have standing to bring such a constitutional claim?
- Reply Brief for Appellants, Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, et al
- Reply Brief for Appellants, Alabama Democratic Conference, et al.
13-983 Elonis v. United States
Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), conviction of threatening another person requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten, as required by the Ninth Circuit and the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening, as held by other federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort?
Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), conviction of threatening another person requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten, as required by the Ninth Circuit and the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening, as held by other federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort?
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?
13-1032 Direct Marketing Association v. Barbara Brohl
Whether the TIA bars federal court jurisdiction over a suit brought by non-taxpayers to enjoin the informational notice and reporting requirements of a state law that neither imposes a tax, nor requires the collection of a tax, but serves only as a secondary aspect of state tax administration?
Whether the TIA bars federal court jurisdiction over a suit brought by non-taxpayers to enjoin the informational notice and reporting requirements of a state law that neither imposes a tax, nor requires the collection of a tax, but serves only as a secondary aspect of state tax administration?
- Brief for Interested Law Professors in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Multistate Tax Commission in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the States of Illinois, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming and the District of Columbia in Support of Respondent
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment