FindLaw: Supreme Court Center: Docket: October 2002 Cases

Supreme Court Docket

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Sept 2003 | Unscheduled

October 2002

[Download October 2002 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2001 Docket]

Monday, October 7

Yellow Transportation, Inc. v. Michigan, et al.
No. 01-270

Subject:

1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), registration fees, reciprocity agreements, Commerce Clause, Preemption Question:

Whether the Michigan Supreme Court erred in holding that, under 49 U.S.C. § 11506(c)(2)(B)(iv)(III) (1994) and 49 U.S.C. § 14504(c)(2)(B) (iv)(III) (Supp. V 1999), only a State's generic fee is relevant to determining the fee that was collected or charged as of November 15, 1991. Decisions:

Michigan Court of Appeals, Filed: August 14, 1998
Michigan Court of Appeals (Concur/Dissent), Filed: August 14, 1998
Supreme Court of Michigan (PDF), Filed: May 15, 2001
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 22, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Decided: November 5, 2002

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties

Respondent State of Michigan, et al. (Petition) [PDF] RTF] [WORD]
Respondent State of Michigan, et al. (Merits) [PDF] RTF] [WORD]

Amicus - Petitioner:
American Trucking Associations Inc., et al. (Petition) [PDF]
United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
American Trucking Associations Inc., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Ford Motor Co. and Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. John B. McCauley, et al.
No. 01-896

Subject:

Jurisdiction, Credit Card Rebates Question:

Whether the cost to the defendant of complying with an injunction sought by a plaintiffs’ class may satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirements of the diversity jurisdiction statute, where such compliance would cost the defendant more than the $75,000 jurisdictional amount whether it covered the entire class or any single member of the class. Supplemental Briefing required on following Question:

Is there appellate jurisdiction when petitioners, as the nominally prevailing party in the district court, appeal the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction? Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: September 6, 2001
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: February 19, 2002
United States Supreme Court [PDF], Dismissed: October 15, 2002

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties:

Petitioners Ford and Citibank (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioners Ford and Citibank - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioners Ford and Citibank (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioners Ford and Citibank - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Petitioners
Chamber of Commerce of the United States (Merits) [PDF]
National Association of Manufacturers (Merits) [PDF]
Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. (Merits) [PDF]
United States (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]

Amicus - Respondents
Association of Trial Lawyers of America (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]

Tuesday, October 8

Federal Communications Commission v. NextWave Personal Communications, et al.
No. 01-653

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, et al. v. NextWave Personal Communications, et al.
No. 01-657

Subject:

PCS Licenses, Auctions, Bankruptcy, Federal Communications Commission Question:

Whether Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 525, conflicts with and displaces the Federal Communications Commission's rules for congressionally authorized spectrum auctions, which provide that wireless telecommunications licenses obtained at auction automatically cancel upon the winning bidder's failure to make timely payments to fulfill its winning bid. Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit, Filed: June 22, 2001
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: March 4, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 27, 2003

Resources:

Docket Sheet (01-653) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Docket Sheet (01-657) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Oral Argument Transcript
Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties:

Petitioner FCC (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
Petitioner FCC - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
Petitioner FCC - Joint Appendex (Volume I) (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
Petitioner FCC - Joint Appendex (Volume II) (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
Petitioner FCC (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Petitioner FCC - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Amicus - Respondents
Airadigm Communications, Inc. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
Creditors of NextWave Personal Communications, Inc. (Merits) [PDF]
Urban-Comm North Carolina, Inc., Debtor-In-Possession (Merits) [PDF]
U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy, Orrin Hatch, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security v. Peabody Coal Company, et al.
No. 01-705

Michael H. Holland, et al. v. Bellaire Corp., et al.
No. 01-715

Subject:

Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992

Question:

The Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 (Coal Act or Act), 26 U.S.C. 9701-9722 (1994 & Supp. V 1999), established the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund (Combined Fund) to ensure the continued provision of health-care benefits to retired coal miners and their dependents who worked under collective bargaining agreements that promised such benefits. Those benefits are financed principally through premiums that must be paid to the Combined Fund by "signatory operators" that employed miners under those collective bargaining agreements and are assigned responsibility for their retired miners' benefits. The Act provides that the Commissioner of Social Security "shall, before October 1, 1993," assign responsibility for each eligible retired coal miner to the signatory operator that employed the miner (or to a "related person" of the signatory operator). 26 U.S.C. 9706(a). The Commissioner was unable, however, to complete all such assignments before October 1, 1993.

The question presented is whether the Commissioner's assignments of responsibility for retired miners that were made on or after October 1, 1993, are void.

Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Filed: June 21, 2001 [Peabody Coal Co.]
U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Filed: June 22, 2001 [Bellaire Corp.]
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 22, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 15, 2003

Resources:

Docket Sheet (01-705) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Docket Sheet (01-715) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Oral Argument Transcript
Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties:

Petitioner Barnhart (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
Respondents Peabody Coal Company, et al. - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner Barnhart - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
Petitioner Barnhart (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Petitioner Barnhart - Joint Appendix [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Respondents Peabody Coal Company, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
Petitioner Barnhart - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Wednesday, October 9

Eric Eldred, et al. v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General
No. 01-618

Subject:

Did the D.C. Circuit err in holding that Congress has the power under the Copyright Clause to extend retrospectively the term of existing copyrights?
Is a law that extends the term of existing and future copy-rights “categorically immune from challenge[] under the First Amendment”?

Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - DC Circuit, Dated: February 16, 2001
U.S. Court of Appeals - DC Circuit, Dated: March 2, 2001
U.S. Court of Appeals - DC Circuit, Order: March 2, 2001
U.S. Court of Appeals - DC Circuit, Petition for Rehearing: July 13, 2001
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: February 19, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Order: February 25, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 15, 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] [TEXT]
Respondent (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
Respondent (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Amicus - Petitioner:
American Association of Law Libraries, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
Constitutional Law Professors (Petition) [PDF]
Copyright Law Professors (Petition) [PDF]
Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
Internet Archive (Petition) [PDF]
American Association of Law Libraries, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
College Art Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Constitutional Law Professors (Merits) [PDF]
Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
George A. Akerlof, et al. (Economists) (Merits) [PDF]
Free Software Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
Hal Roach Studios, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Intel Corporation (Merits) [PDF]
Intellectual Property Law Professors (Merits) [PDF]
Internet Archive, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
Malla Pollack (Merits) [TEXT]
National Writers Union, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Organization of American Historians, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Progressive Intellectual Property Law Association and the Union for the Public Domain (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Respondent:
American Intellectual Property Law Association (Merits) [PDF]
Amsong, Inc. (Merits) [PDF]
AOL Time Warner (Merits) [PDF]
Association of American Publishers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Directors Guild of America (Merits) [PDF]
Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Senator Orin G. Hatch (Merits) [PDF]
Intellectual Property Owners Association (Merits) [PDF]
International Coalition for Copyright Protection (Merits) [PDF]
Members of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives (Merits) [PDF]
Motion Picture Association of America (Merits) [PDF]
Nashville Songwriters Association International (Merits) [PDF]
New York Intellectual Property Law Association (Merits) [PDF]
Recording Artists Coalition (Merits) [PDF]
Recording Industry Association of America (Merits) [PDF]
Professor Edward Samuels, New York Law School (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
Songwriters Guild of America (Merits) [PDF]
Symphonic and Concert Composers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Karen Howsam, et al. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
No. 01-800

Subject:

Securities Arbitration Question:

Whether a court or the arbitrator should determine whether a claim seeking arbitration is time-barred under section 10304 of the National Association of Securities Dealers Code of Arbitration Procedures ("NASD Code"), which provides that "[n]o dispute, claim, or controversy shall be eligible for submission to arbitration under this Code where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the act or dispute, claim, or controversy." Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 10th Circuit, Filed: August 9, 2001
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: February 25, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Decided: December 10, 2002

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Amicus - Petitioner

Securities and Exchange Commission (Merits) [TEXT] [RTF]

Amicus - Neither Party:
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice and AARP (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]

Tuesday, October 15

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., et al., v. Henson
No. 01-757

Subject:

Jurisdiction, Class Action, Sanctions Question:

Does the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), grant federal district courts the original jurisdiction required under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 to permit removal of cases that would otherwise be ineligible for removal? Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Dated: August 14, 2001
U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Dated: August 21, 2001
U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Dated: September 4, 2001
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: February 19, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Decided: November 5, 2002

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties:

Respondent (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD] [WP]
Respondent (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD] [WP]

Amicus - Petitioners:
Product Liability Advisory Council (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]

Amicus - Respondent:
Association of Trial Lawyers of America (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (Merits) [PDF]
State of Texas [PDF]

Rex R. Sprietsma, Administrator of the Estate of Jeanne Sprietsma, Deceased v. Mercury Marine
No. 01-706

Subject:

Federal Boat Safety Act, Product Liability, Defective Design, Preemption Question:

et seq.

Decisions:

Appellate Court of Illinois, Filed: April 6, 2000
Supreme Court of Illinois, Filed August 16, 2001
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 22, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Decided: December 3, 2002

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] [TEXT]
Petitioner (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]

Amicus - Petitioner:
United States (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
States of Missouri, Arkansas, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Respondent:
Product Liability Advisory Council (Merits) [PDF]

Wednesday, October 16

United States v. Thomas Lamar Bean
No. 01-704

Subject:

Federal Firearms Act, Felons, Right to Possess Firearms, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Question:

Under federal law, a person who is convicted of a felony is prohibited from possessing firearms. The Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), may grant relief from that prohibition if it is established to his satisfaction that certain preconditions are established. See 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). Since 1992, however, every appropriations law for ATF has specified that ATF may not expend any appropriated funds to act upon appliations for such relief. The question presented is whether, despite that appropriations provision barring ATF from acting on such applications, a federal district court has authority to grant relief from firearms disabilities to persons convicted of a felony. Decisions: