Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
16-373
|
California Public Employee's Retirement v. ANZ Securities
1. Does the filing of a putative class action serve, under the American Pipe rule, to satisfy the three-year time limitation in Section 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members? (Question granted in IndyMac ) |
|
Jan. 16, 2017 | ||
16-399
|
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board
Whether an MSPB decision disposing of a "mixed" case on jurisdictional grounds is subject to judicial review in district court or in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. |
|
Jan. 16, 2017 | ||
16-405
|
BNSF Railway v. Tyrrell
Whether a state court may decline to follow this Court's decision in Daimler AG u. Bauman, which held that the Due Process Clause forbids a state court from exercising general personal jurisdiction over a defendant that is not at home in the forum state, in a suit against an American defendant under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. |
|
Jan. 16, 2017 | ||
16-529
|
Kokesh v. SEC
Does the five-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. section 2462 apply to claims for "disgorgement"? |
|
Jan. 16, 2017 | ||
16-605
|
Town of Chester, NY v. Laroe Estates Inc.
Whether intervenors participating in a lawsuit as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) must have Article III standing (as three circuits have held), or whether Article III is satisfied so long as there is a valid case or controversy between the named parties (as seven circuits have held). |
|
Jan. 16, 2017 | ||
16-5294
|
McWilliams v. Dunn
When this Court held in Ake that an indigent defendant is entitled to meaningful expert assistance for the "evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense," did it clearly establish that the expert should be independent of the prosecution? |
|
Jan. 16, 2017 | ||
16-6219
|
Davila v. Davis
Does the rule established in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012) and Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911, 1921 (2013), that ineffective state habeas counsel can be seen as cause to overcome the procedural default of a substantial ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, also apply to procedurally defaulted, but substantial, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims? |
|
Jan. 16, 2017 | ||
S238074
|
People v. Gudino
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238077
|
In Re Q.H.
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238664
|
People v. Lecou
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238093
|
People v. Lout
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238839
|
People v. Mills
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238280
|
People v. Ortiz
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238169
|
People v. Pargas
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238608
|
People v. Penilla
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238688
|
People v. Perez
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238708
|
People v. Roddy
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238598
|
People v. Salmon
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238233
|
People v. Scilagyi
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238539
|
People v. Sulitswalley
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238651
|
People v. Swann
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238485
|
People v. Taylor
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238073
|
People v. Windfield
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238782
|
People v. Woodard
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
B267004
|
Anna M. v. Jeffery E.
Trial court has discretion to not consider regular financial support provided to mother as 'income' in child support case. |
Family Law |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | |
A140589
|
People v. Bush
Self-represented defendant unsuccessful in challenging convictions, where he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | |
A140589
|
People v. Bush
Self-represented defendant unsuccessful in challenging convictions, where he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | |
S238354
|
People v. Perez
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238563
|
Union of Medical Marijuana Patients v. City of San Diego (California Coastal Commission)
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 | ||
S238339
|
People v. Bell
Order |
|
Jan. 12, 2017 |