Supreme Court Docket : Susette Kelo, et al v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al. No. 04-108

NYTimes.com > Washington

SUPREME COURT DOCKET :
MAIN
cases
docket
decisions
orders
briefs
rules
guides
calendar

Supreme Court Docket
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Unscheduled
February 2005[Download February 2005 Argument Calendar PDF][Click here for 2003-2004 Docket]Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.
Tuesday, February 22
Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al.No. 04-108
Subject:
Fifth Amendment, Due Process, Public Use, Eminent Domain Question:
What protection does the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement provide for individuals whose property is being condemned, not to eliminate slums or blight, but for the sole purpose of "economic development" that will perhaps increase tax revenues and improve the local economy? Decisions:
Supreme Court of Connecticut Opinion Filed: March 9, 2004
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: September 28, 2004
Resources:
Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs: Parties
Merits Phase
Petitioners
Petitioners - Reply Amicus - Supporting Petitioners
Merits Phase
America's Future, Inc., et al.
American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. (1.4 MB)
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Better Government Association, et al.
Professors David L. Callies, et al. (1.4 MB)
Cascade Policy Institute, et al.
The Cato Institute
Claremont Institute
Develop Don�t Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc., et al.
Goldwater Institute, et al.
Jane Jacobs (2 MB)
King Ranch, Inc.
Laura B. Kohr, et al.
Mountain States Legal Foundation, et al.
NAACP, AARP, et al. (1.8 MB)
National Association of Homebuilders, et al. (1.4 MB)
New London Landmarks, Inc., et al. (2.2 MB)
New London Railroad Co., Inc.
John Norquist, President, Congress for New Urbanism (1.5 MB)
Pacific Legal Foundation, et al.
Property Rights Foundation of America (4 MB)
Reason Foundation
Robert Nigel Richards, et al.
Rutherford Institute (1.1 MB)
Tidewater Libertarian Party Amicus - Supporting Respondents
Merits Phase
American Planning Association, et al.
Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development (BUILD), et al. (6.6 MB)
Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, et al.
National League of Cities, et al.
Law Professors Robert H. Freilich, et al.
Counsel of RecordFor Petitioners Kelo, et al.:
Scott G. BullockInstitute For Justice Washington, DC For Respondents New London, et al.:
Wesley W. HortonHorton Shields & Knox PCHartford, CT
Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.No. 04-163
Subject:
Just Compensation Clause, State Economic Legislation Questions:
Whether the Just Compensation Clause authorizes a court to invalidate state economic legislation on its face and enjoin enforcement of the law on the basis that the legislation does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest, without regard to whether the challenged law diminishes the economic value or usefulness of any property.
Whether a court, in determining under the Just Compensation Clause whether state economic legislation substantially advances a legitimate state interest, should apply a deferential standard of review equivalent to that traditionally applied to economic legislation under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, or may instead substitute its judgment for that of the legislature by determining de novo, by a preponderance of the evidence at trial, whether the legislation will be effective in achieving its goals. Decisions:
U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit Opinion Filed: April 1, 2004
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: October 12, 2004
Resources:
Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs: Parties
Merits Phase
Petitioners
Respondent Amicus - Supporting Petitioners
Merits Phase
American Planning Association
League of California Cities
National Conference of State Legislatures, et al.
Service Station Dealers of America (1.2 MB)
States of New York, et al.
United States [TEXT] Amicus - Supporting Respondent
Merits Phase
Action Apartment Association, Inc. (7 MB)
Cato Institute (1.6 MB)
Charles W. Coupe, et al.
Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc., et al.
National Association of Home Builders
Pacific Legal Foundation, et al.
Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute, et al.
Counsel of RecordFor Petitioners Lingle, et al.:
Seth P. WaxmanWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLPWashington, DC For Respondent Chevron U.S.A. Inc.:
Craig E. StewartJones DaySan Francisco, CA
Wednesday, February 23
Francis A. Orff, et al. v. United States, et al.No. 03-1566
Subject:
Third-party Beneficiaries, Water Service and Repayment Contracts, Entitlement to Sue Agency Question:
The question presented is whether farmers are "intended" third-party beneficiaries of their irrigation district's water service and repayment contracts with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and, therefore, entitled to sue the Bureau for breach thereof, as the Federal Circuit has long held, or merely "incidental" third-party beneficiaries and, therefore, not so entitled, as the Ninth Circuit holds in the decision below. Decisions:
U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit Opinion Filed: February 18, 2004
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: October 12, 2004
Resources:
Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs: Parties
Merits Phase
Petitioners
Respondent United States
Respondent Westlands Water District
Counsel of RecordFor Petitioners Orff, et al:
William M. SmilandSmiland & KhachigianLos Angeles, CA For Respondents United States, et al.:
Paul D. ClementActing U.S. Solicitor GeneralWashington, DC For Respondent Westlands Water District:
Stuart L. SomachSomach, Simmons & DunnSacramento, CA
Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al. v. Saudi Basic Industries CorporationNo. 03-1696
Subject:
Dual Ffederal and State Jurisdiction, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Preclusion Principles Question:
May the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars lower federal courts from conducting de facto appellate review of decisions by state courts, be expansively interpreted to additionally incorporate preclusion principles and divest federal courts of jurisdiction solely because a pending state-court proceeding presents identical issues, notwithstanding the long-established system of dual federal and state jurisdiction? Decisions:
U.S. Court of Appeals - 3rd Circuit Opinion Filed: March 24, 2004
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: October 12, 2004
Resources:
Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
[Coming Soon]
Counsel of RecordFor Petitioners Exxon Mobil Corp., et al.:
Gregory Scott ColemanWeil, Gotshal & Manges LLPAustin, TX For Respondent Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.:
Gregory Andrew CastaniasJones DayWashington, DC
Monday, February 28
Douglas Spector, et al. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.No. 03-1388
Subject:
Americans with Disabilities Act, Foreign-Flag Cruise Ships Question:
Whether and to what extent Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to companies that operate foreign-flag cruise ships in United States waters? Decisions:
U.S. Court of Appeals - 5th Circuit Opinion Filed: January 12, 2004
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: September 28, 2004
Resources:
Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs: Parties
Merits Phase
Petitioners
Joint Appendix
Respondent
Petitioners - Reply
Counsel of RecordFor Petitioners Spector, et al.:
Thomas C. GoldsteinGoldstein & Howe, P.C.Washington, DC For Respondent Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd:
Thomas H. WilsonVinson & Elkins L.L.P.Houston, TX
John A. Pace v. David DiGuglielmo, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al.No. 03-9627
Subject:
Habeas Corpus, Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, "Properly Filed" Petition, Equitable Tolling Questions:
Should this Court grant the writ to resolve a conflict between the Courts of Appeal regarding an important question that this Court explicitly reserved in Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000) - whether an untimely state postconviction petition may be "properly filed" under � 2244(d)(2)?
Should this Court grant the writ to resolve a conflict between the Courts of Appeal regarding whether Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) answered the question about "properly filed" that Artuz reserved?
Should this Court grant the writ to answer the question about "properly filed" which was reserved by Artuz and which the Third Circuit decided erroneously?
Should this Court grant the writ and review the Third Circuit's denial of equitable tolling, where the Third Circuit denies all federal habeas review to petitioners who act appropriately, reasonably and diligently, and as demanded by the exhaustion requirement, in seeking state court remedies? Decisions:
U.S. Court of Appeals - 3rd Circuit Unpublished Opinion Filed: July 30, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: September 28, 2004
Resources:
Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs: Parties
Merits Phase
Petitioner
Respondent
Petitioner - Reply
Counsel of RecordFor Petitioner Pace:
Billy H. NolasDefender Association of PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia, PA For Respondents DiGuglielmo, et al.:
Ronald EisenbergDeputy District AttorneyPhiladelphia, PA

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Unscheduled
To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader
Copyright � 2005 FindLaw