Federal Judiciary

Petitions to Watch | Conference of 4.18.08

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

The latest edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference of April 18. As always, the list reflects the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. To access previous editions of Petitions to Watch, including the list for the upcoming conference of April 11, visit our archives here on SCOTUSwiki.

Issues raised in the current list of petitions include Jewish Community Centers’ liability under Title VII, state sovereign immunity in patent disputes, and the validity of a punitive damages award against Exxon. For the full list of petitions on our watch list, continue reading after the jump.

Conference of April 18, 2008

__________________

Docket: 07-803
Case name: Thacker v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.
Issue: Whether a former licensee is entitled to surplus money recovered by the Federal Communications Commission after its license was cancelled and then re-auctioned.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

__________________

Docket: 07-943
Case name: LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Community Center Association
Issue: Whether a Jewish Community Center qualifies for the ?religious exemption? from Title VII?s anti-discrimination requirements.

• Opinion below (3rd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 07-952
Case name: Denton v. Hyman
Issue: Whether a state court judgment holding a corporate fiduciary liable for misappropriation of corporate assets is dischargeable in bankruptcy.

• Opinion below (2nd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 07-956
Case name: Biomedical Patent Management Corp. v. California Dept. of Health Services
Issue: Whether a state that has sought to enforce its own patent rights in federal court waives its sovereign immunity against allegations of patent infringement.

• Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of the Chamber of Commerce (in support of the petition)

__________________

Docket: 07-1055
Case name: Exxon Mobil v. Grefer
Issue: Whether, if a punitive damage award is found to have rested on improper considerations, a court may remedy the error by allowing the maximum amount of damages due process allows.

• Opinion below (Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

__________________

Docket: 07-1059, 07-1078
Case name: United States v. Eurodif, S.A.; USEC, Inc., et al. v. Eurodif, S.A.
Issue: Whether contracts for uranium enrichment services are subject to federal anti-dumping laws.

• Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (United States)
• Petition for certiorari (USEC)
• Brief in opposition (Ad Hoc Utilities Group)
• Brief in opposition (Eurodif, S.A.)
• Petitioner’s reply (United States)
• Petitioner’s reply (USEC)
• Amicus brief of the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws (in support of the petitioners)

__________________

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on April 04, 2008 (boomark / email).