Federal Judiciary

Notable Petitions

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

The ?Notable Petitions? feature lists petitions that are likely to appear on our ?Petitions to Watch? list when they are scheduled for consideration by the Justices.  ?Notable Petitions? are those that Tom has identified as raising one or more questions that has a reasonable chance of being granted in an appropriate case.  We generally do not attempt to evaluate whether the case presents an appropriate vehicle to decide the question, which is a critical consideration in determining whether certiorari will be granted.

The newest notable petitions, along with the opinions below and any other briefs filed at the Court so far, follow the jump.

Title: State of South Carolina v. Navy
Docket: 09-1459
Issue: Whether, if a suspect is read his Miranda rights mid-interrogation, the statements he makes after being read his rights are admissible.

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of South Carolina)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition (forthcoming)

Title: Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri
Docket: 09-1476
Issue: Whether state and local government employees may sue their employers for retaliation under the First Amendment?s Petition Clause when they petitioned the government on matters of private concern.

• Opinion below (3rd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief of the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs in support of petitioners

Title: Missouri v. Brooks
Docket: 09-1492
Issue: Whether generic and nonresponsive exculpatory statements made by a suspect after he was read his Miranda rights constitute can be used to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial.

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Missouri)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

Title: Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Commission
Docket: 09-1496
Issue: Whether compelled contributions to fund unsupervised commercial speech are immune from First Amendment scrutiny pursuant to the government speech doctrine where the government has virtually no authority over or involvement in generating or reviewing such speech.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

Title: United States v. Tinklenberg
Docket: 09-1498
Issue: Whether the time between the filing of a pretrial motion and its disposition is automatically excluded from the deadline for commencing trial under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, or is instead excluded only if the motion actually causes a postponement, or the expectation of a postponement, of the trial.

• Opinion below (6th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

Title: Feesers v. Michael Foods
Docket: 09-1499
Issue: Whether, in order to support a finding of competitive injury under the Robinson-Patman Act, a plaintiff must also prove that the favored and disfavored purchasers bought the discriminatorily priced products at the exact same moment at which they or their customers competed to resell those products.

• Opinion below (3d Circuit )
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Brief of the International Foodservice Distributors Association in support of petitioner

Title: Actavis, Inc. v. Demahy
Docket: 09-1501
Issue: Whether the states are preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution from requiring additional safety information on a generic product label where the brand has not changed its label.

• Opinion below (5th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on August 19, 2010 (boomark / email).