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."
- Brief for American Trucking Associations, Inc. in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc., in Support of Respondent in Support of Affirmance
- Brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center and Society for Human Resource Management in Support of Respondent
- Brief for U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Support of Respondent
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.
13-553 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.
- Brief for Council on State Taxation in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the Tax Foundation in Support of Respondent
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?
- Brief for Impact Fund, National Employment Lawyers Association, AARP, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, Disability Rights California, and Public Counsel in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the States of Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, and Washington in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Women’s Rights Organizations and Individuals in Support of Respondent
13-1074 United States v. Wong
May the two-year time limit for filing an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2401(b), be subject to equitable tolling?
May the two-year time limit for filing an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2401(b), be subject to equitable tolling?
13-1075 United States v. Marlene June
May the two-year time limit for filing an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2401(b), be subject to equitable tolling?
No comments:
Post a Comment