Federal Judiciary

Notable Petitions

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

An interesting petition was filed last month in Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, defending a California law that places a statute of limitations on claims for the recovery of property stolen during the Holocaust. The Ninth Circuit struck down the State law earlier this year, partly on the grounds that it intrudes on the federal foreign affairs power.

Another recently filed petition, Lonberg v. City of Riverside, asks the Court to consider whether a private cause of action exists to enforce a certain provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  A third petition, Limmer, Smith, and Nothnagel v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., involves standards for warning devices used at railroad crossings.

None of the briefs in opposition have yet been filed, but the petitions and their questions presented follow the jump.

Title: Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena
Docket: 09-1254
Issues: (1) Whether, in enacting a state statute extending the statute of limitations applicable to claims for the recovery of property stolen during the Holocaust against museums and galleries, the State of California was addressing an area of “traditional state responsibility” without intruding on the federal foreign affairs power; (2) whether a state statute extending the statute of limitations for the recovery of property stolen during the Holocaust, which does not conflict with any federal statute, treaty or policy, is preempted by the federal foreign affairs power to make and resolve war; and (3) whether California Code of Civil Procedure § 354.3 is facially unconstitutional when the application to the case at bar poses no constitutional infirmity.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Title: Limmer, Smith, and Nothnagel v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Docket: 09-1255
Issue: Whether the federally funded addition of a component of a warning device (retroreflective tape) to an existing warning device (a crossbuck warning sign) at a railroad crossing is the installation of a “warning device” under 23 C.F.R. § 646.214(b)(3) and (4), thereby preempting state-law claims of negligence.

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Texas)
• Petition for certiorari

Title: Lonberg v. City of Riverside
Docket: 09-1259
Issue: Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act?s transition-plan regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(d), are enforceable by private right of action.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on May 06, 2010 (boomark / email).