Pacificare Health Systems v. Jeffrey Book, et al.
No. 02-215

Subject:

Arbitration, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Civil Procedure

Whether a district court must compel arbitration of a plaintiff’s RICO claims under a valid arbitration agreement even if that agreement does not allow an arbitrator to award punitive damages, leaving to the arbitrator in the first instance the decision of what remedies are available to the RICO plaintiff in arbitration.

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Filed: March 14, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: October 15, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 7, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties:
• Petitioners (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
• Petitioners - Appendix (Petition) [PDF]
• Respondents (Petition) [PDF]
• Petitioners - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioners
• National Association of Manufacturers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• Washington Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• National Association of Consumer Advocates (Merits) [PDF]
• Public Citizen, Inc. (Merits) [PDF]
• Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (Merits) [PDF]

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Gilbert Hyatt, et al.
No. 02-42

Subject:

State Rights, Conflict of Laws, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Income Tax, Federalism

Did the Nevada Supreme Court impermissibly interfere with California's capacity to fulfill its sovereign responsibilities, in derogation of art. IV, sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution, by refusing to give full faith and credit to California law (Government Code section 860.2) in a suit brought against California for the torts of invasion of privacy, outrage, abuse of process, and fraud alleged to have occurred in the course of California's administrative efforts to determine a former resident's liability for California personal income tax?

• Supreme Court of Nevada, Filed: April 4, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: October 15, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 23, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties
• Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondent Hyatt (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioner
• States of Oregon, Alaska, et al. (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  
  
• National Governors Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• States of Florida, Alaska, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• Pacific Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]

Tuesday, February 25

Joseph Massaro v. United States
No. 01-1559

Subject:

Motion to Vacate Conviction, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Sixth Amendment

Whether the court of appeals correctly affirmed the denial of petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioner did not demonstrate cause and prejudice for his failure to raise that claim on direct appeal of his conviction.

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit, Filed: November 2, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: October 1, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 23, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties:
• Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  
  
• Respondent (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Clackamas Gastroenterology v. Deborah Wells
No. 01-1435

Subject:

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)

Whether a federal court should apply an economic realities test to determine if a medical clinic's physician-shareholders should be counted as "employees" for the purpose of determining if the clinic is a "covered entity" subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal anti-discrimination statutes.

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: November 26, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: October 1, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 22, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties
• Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [RTF]
• Respondent (Opposition) [PDF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [RTF]

Wednesday, February 26

Joseph C. Roell, et al. v. Jon Michael Withrow
No. 02-69

Subject:

Federal Trials, Magistrate Judges, Civil Procedure

When a district court refers a case to a magistrate judge for trial, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and all parties, the magistrate judge, and the jury proceed in a manner consistent with that referral, must a court of appeals vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction because the defendant did not expressly consent?

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 5th Circuit, Filed: April 8, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: November 4, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 29, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties
• Petitioners (Petition) [PDF]
• Petitioners - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]

Dow Chemical Company, et al. v. Daniel Stephenson, et al.
No. 02-271

Subject:

Class Actions, Adequacy of Representation, Civil Procedure

1. Whether absent class members are precluded from relitigating the issue of adequacy of representation through a collateral attack on a class settlement, after class members had a full opportunity to opt out, object, and appeal, and after both the trial court and the court of appeals, in the course of approving the settlement, expressly determined that the class representatives adequately represented the entire class.
   
   
2. Whether, if collateral attack is permissible, the "adequacy of representation" is an issue that is to be properly determined as of the time of the original litigation or in light of events and changes in the law occurring years after the settlement has becomes final and all of the settlement proceeds have been disbursed.

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit, Filed: November 30, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: November 4, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 9, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties
• Respondents (Merits) [PDF]