Teresa Schulte

United States Supreme Court (10 summaries)

Kansas v. Glover

When an officer runs a license plate and learns that the owner has a revoked license—absent knowledge of any contradictory facts—it is reasonable for the officer to infer that the driver is also the owner of the vehicle, and the traffic stop is justified.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Davis v. United States

When a plain error affects substantial rights, neither Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor federal precedent shields any category of errors from plain-error review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma

ERISA §1113's three-year statute of limitations for breaches in which a plaintiff has "actual knowledge" requires a factual showing that the plaintiff was actually aware of the information that constitutes the alleged breach. A showing of constructive knowledge is insufficient.

Area(s) of Law:
  • ERISA

Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC

A creditor’s motion for relief from the automatic stay initiates a distinct proceeding terminating in a final, appealable order when the bankruptcy court rules dispositively on the motion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Peter v. Nantkwest

Under section 145 of the Patent Act, the term “expenses” does not include attorney’s fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

United States v. Haymond

The mandatory minimum sentence imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 3853(k) violates the right to a trial by jury guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust

States may not tax trusts based solely on the in-state residency of a beneficiary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

Headline: Under the America Invents Act, a federal agency is not a “person” eligible to institute post-issuance review proceedings challenging a patent’s validity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Nieves v. Bartlett

The existence of probable cause, examined under an objective standard, generally precludes retaliatory arrest claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Apple, Inc. v. Pepper

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois established a bright-line rule authorizing direct purchasers to bring suit against alleged antitrust violators.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Antitrust

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (18 summaries)

Borden v. United States

Does the “use of force” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (the “ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) encompass crimes with a mens rea of mere recklessness?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

(1) Whether free exercise plaintiffs can only succeed by proving a particular type of discrimination claim or whether courts must consider other evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable? (2) Whether Employment Div. v. Smith should be revisited? (3) Whether a government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Pereida v. Barr

Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Walker v. United States

Whether a criminal offense that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness can qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam

Whether, as applied to Respondent, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Cook v. United States

Whether § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Lin v. United States

Is the residual clause at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) void for vagueness? Should this Court hold petitioner’s case for a ruling in United States v. Davis, 903 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 782 (2019) (No. 18-431)?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Martin v. United States

(1) Whether reasonable jurists could debate whether Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) and Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) invalidated the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B). (2) Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness for the same reasons that this Court found 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) void for vagueness in Dimaya.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Parks v. United States

Whether a new trial is warranted where the District Court failed to instruct the jury that, in order to convict a person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), it must find that the Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew he possessed a firearm and “knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.” Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (June 21, 2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Mann v. United States

Whether the definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Whether courts should determine ownership of a tax refund paid to an affiliated group based on the federal common law “Bob Richards rule,” as three Circuits hold, or based on the law of the relevant State, as four Circuits hold.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Ross, Sec. of Commerce v. California

Whether the district court erred in enjoining the Secretary of Commerce from reinstating a citizenship question to the 2020 decennial census.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Trump v. NAACP

Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy is judicially reviewable. Whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Watkins v. United States

(1) Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924( c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness, a question that divides seven courts of appeals. (2) Whether Hobbs Act conspiracy can automatically be characterized as a categorical crime of violence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Gray v. Wilkie, Sec. of VA

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 502 to review an interpretive rule reflecting the Department of Veterans Affairs’ definitive interpretation of its own regulation, even if the VA chooses to promulgate that rule through its adjudication manual.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Richardson v. United States

Whether the First Step Act of 2018 applies to defendants who were sentenced prior to its enactment but whose convictions and sentences remain pending on direct review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

McKinney v. Arizona

(1) Whether the Arizona Supreme Court was required to apply current law when weighing mitigating and aggravating evidence to determine whether a death sentence is warranted. (2) Whether the correction of error under Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) requires resentencing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Mont v. United States

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), pretrial detention qualifies as “imprison[ment] in connection with a conviction” when subsequent sentencing credits that detention as time served, thereby tolling the period of supervised release.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (1 summary)

State v. Davilla

Under Miller, when a juvenile faces a de facto life sentence, the sentencer is required to “take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 479–80 (2012). Failure to do so violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Back to Top