Margaret Dick

United States Supreme Court (23 summaries)

CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co.

"Safe-berth" clauses in maritime contracts, depending on the language, embody a warranty of safety, imposing liability for unsafe berth regardless of the care taken by the charterer in choosing a berth.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Kahler v. Kansas

Due process does not require that a test of insanity as a defense to a crime turn on a defendant’s ability to recognize the moral turpitude of his crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

The Bob Richards rule, which provides that in the absence of an agreement, a refund belongs to the group member responsible for the losses that led to it, promulgated in response to issues stemming from the IRS’s allowing affiliated groups of corporations to file consolidated federal tax returns, is not a legitimate exercise of federal common lawmaking.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Thompson v. Hebdon

In Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006), the Supreme Court established that political contribution limits that are unfairly low prevent challengers from launching effective campaigns and therefore negatively impact democratic accountability.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Sperling v. United States of America

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) is unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as held by the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Haymond, 869 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Mitchell v. Wisconsin

When a driver is unconscious and therefore cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment generally permits a blood test without a warrant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc.

When determining whether a court must follow an order issued by an administrative agency, a court must first determine whether the order is legislative or interpretive and whether the petitioner had a prior and adequate opportunity to seek judicial review of the order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck

Operation of public access channels is not a traditional, exclusive public function; private entities that operate public access channels are not state actors and are not restricted by the First Amendment in their editorial discretion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority

The waiver of immunity in the Tennessee Valley Authority’s "sue-and-be-sued" clause is not subject to a discretionary function exception of the kind in the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

Bucklew v. Precythe

Baze v. Rees, 553 U. S. 35 (2008) and Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain whether the challenged are facial or as-applied.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Lorenzo v. SEC

Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of Rules 10b–5(a) and (c) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as the relevant statutory provisions, even if the disseminator did not “make” the statements and consequently falls outside Rule 10b–5(b).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Business Law

Frank v. Gaos

Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), establishes that Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries

In maritime tort context, product manufacturers have a duty to warn when a product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that danger is realizable by users.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall Street.com, LLC, et al

Registration of a copyright, for purposes of 17 U.S.C. §411(a), occurs when the Register of Copyrights registers a copyright. A copyright owner gains exclusive rights in his work upon its creation and may, upon registration, recover for a copyright infringement that occurred before registration under 17 U.S.C. §501(b) but must thereafter pursue registration pursuant to §411(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Madison v. Alabama

The Eighth Amendment permits execution of a prisoner who cannot remember committing the crime. Panetti v. Quarterman requires only the ability of the prisoner to comprehend the State's reason for the punishment and that judges look downstream to determine whether a specific mental condition may limit the prisoner's ability to comprehend the State's rationale at any time leading up to his execution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

City of Escondido, California v. Marty Emmons

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity only when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established rights, both statutory and constitutional, of which a reasonable person would have known. This clearly established right must be specifically defined to trigger a determination of qualified immunity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Ortiz v. United States

A judge’s simultaneous service on the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Military Commission Review violates neither §973(b)(2)(A) nor the Appointments Clause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Chavez-Meza v. United States

Where the record demonstrates that a judge has expressed a reasoned basis for a non-proportional sentence reduction, the explanation is adequate to support the sentence reduction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Sveen v. Melin

Retroactive application of state statute rescinding any revocable beneficiary designations in the event of divorce, does not violate the Constitution's Contracts Clause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Byrd v. United States

One who is in lawful possession and control of a rental car has a reasonable expectation of privacy in it even when they are not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

SAS Institute v. Ianca

In an inter partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§311-319, the Patent Office must decide the patentability of every claim challenged by the petitioner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Hall v. Hall

When consolidated under FRCP 42(a), cases retain their distinct identities such that when a final judgment is rendered in one, it confers upon the losing party the immediate right of appeal, regardless of whether any of the other consolidated cases remains unresolved.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC

A designation of "non-statutory insider" status on an individual for purposes of Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings requires findings of basic or historical fact which are appropriately reviewed for clear error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (27 summaries)

Van Buren v. United States

Whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Jones v. Mississippi

Whether the Eighth Amendment requires the sentencing authority to make a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania

Whether the agencies had statutory authority under the ACA and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board

Whether, under section 5(f) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, 45 U.S.C. § 355(f), and section 8 of the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. § 231g, the Railroad Retirement Board’s denial of a request to reopen a prior benefits determination is a “final decision” subject to judicial review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l, Inc.

Whether the First Amendment bars enforcement of the directive issued by Congress that certain recipients of federal funds have a policy of explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking as a condition of accepting such federal funds, with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with a domestic entity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al., v. Booking.com B.V.

Whether the addition by an online business of a generic top-level domain (“.com”) to an otherwise generic term can create a protectable trademark.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Nasrallah v. Barr, Attorney General

Whether the courts of appeals possess jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Contreras v. United States

Whether the Texas offense of aggravated assault is equivalent to the generic form of that offense and whether 18 U.S.C 924(a) provides for criminal liability in the absence of a showing that the defendant knew of his felony status.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Enclarity, Inc., et al v. Fulton

Whether faxes that only request information and propose no commercial transaction with recipients are “advertisements” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act which prohibits the sending of any "unsolicited advertisemet[s]" to fax machines. 47 U.S.C. § 227(B)(1)(C).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Escourse-Westbrook v. United States

Whether the Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. Davis, deciding 18 U.S.C § 924(c)(3)(B)'s definition of "crime of violence" is constitutionally vague, will retroactively apply to cases on review and whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in denying a certificate of appealability to help resolve the issue.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Robinson v. United States

Whether North Carolina breaking and Entering, which criminalizes the breaking and entering into "any other structure designed to house or secure within it any activity or property," is broader than the Armed Career Criminal Act burglary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless

Whether the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) permits a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement to compel arbitration based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-To-Call

Whether the American Invents Act, 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), permits appeal of the PTAB’s decision to institute an inter partes review upon finding that the Act's § 315(b) time bar did not apply.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Att'y Gen.

Whether a request for equitable tolling by a person subject to the criminal alien bar is a factual determination such that judicial review is precluded by 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C) or a legal determination such that it is reviewable under §1252(a)(2)(D) as a question of law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian

1. Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies is a “challenge” to EPA’s cleanup jurisdictionally barred by § 113 of CERCLA. 2. Whether a landowner at a Superfund site is a “potentially responsible party” that must seek EPA’s approval under CERCLA § 122(e)(6) before engaging in remedial action, even if EPA has never ordered the landowner to pay for a cleanup. 3. Whether CERCLA preempts state common law claims for restoration that seek cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Retirement Plans Comm. of IBM v. Jander

Whether the“more harm than good” pleading standard set forth in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014) can be satisfied by generalized allegations that the harm of an inevitable disclosure of an alleged fraud generally increases over time.

Area(s) of Law:
  • ERISA

Hernandez v. Mesa

(1) Whether, when plaintiffs plausibly allege that a rogue federal law enforcement officer violated clearly established fourth and fifth amendment rights for which there is no alternative legal remedy, the federal courts can and should recognize a damages claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and (2) if not, whether the Westfall Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment insofar as it preempts state-law tort suits for damages against rogue federal law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their employment for which there is no alternative legal remedy

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Rotkiske v. Klemm

Whether the “discovery rule” applies to toll the one (1) year statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq., as the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held but the Third Circuit (sua sponte en banc) has held contrarily.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

County of Maui, HI v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund

Whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

NY State Rifle & Pistol v. New York, NY

Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Quarles v. United States of America

Whether Taylor's definition of generic burglary requires proof that intent to commit a crime was present at the time of unlawful entry or first unlawful remaining, or whether it is enough that the defendant formed the intent to commit a crime at any time while “remaining in” the building or structure.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

In re Department of Commerce et al.

Whether in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decision maker.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Mont V. United States

Is a district court required to exercise its jurisdiction in order to suspend the running of a supervised release sentence as directed under 18 U.S.C. §3583(i) prior to expiration of the term of supervised release, when a supervised releasee is in pretrial detention, or does 18 U.S.C. §3624(e) toll the running of supervised release while in pretrial detention?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred by using the Federal Torts Claims Act derived “discretionary-function exception,” rather than the "sue and be sued" test of immunity under Fed. Housing Admin. v. Burr, to immunize the Tennessee Valley Authority from the plaintiffs’ claims.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals

Whether, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Apple, Inc. v. Pepper

Whether consumers may sue for antitrust damages anyone who delivers goods to them, even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Jam v. International Finance Corp.

Whether the International Organizations Immunities Act—which affords international organizations the “same immunity” from suit that foreign governments have, 22 U.S.C. § 288a(b)— confers the same immunity on such organizations as foreign governments have under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-11, and if not, what are the rules governing the immunity to which international organizations are entitled?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

Back to Top