Filed State Amicus Briefs 2009 AG Zoeller |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case Name | Case No. | Stage | Authoring State | Join Deadline | Case Summary (or position of Indiana in brief) | Joined? |
| Briscoe v. Virginia | 07-11191 | SCOTUS Amicus (Resp.) Argument 1/11/10 |
Mass & IN | Submitted 11/2/09 | (1) Did the petitioners waive their Confrontation Clause rights by failing to make a demand that the prosecution produce a forensic analyst for trial? (2) Does the Confrontation Clause require the prosecution to present the testimony of prosecution witnesses during the prosecution’s case in chief and preclude exhibits from being introduced before the witness’s live testimony? | Co-Authoring |
| Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York | 08-969 | SCOTUS Amicus (Resp.) Argued 11/3/09 |
IN | Submitted 9/23/09 | Whether a city government meets the RICO standing requirement that a plaintiff be directly injured in its “business or property” by alleging non-commercial injury resulting from non-payment of taxes by non-litigant third parties. | Authoring |
| Pottawattamie County, Iowa v. McGhee | 08-1065 | SCOTUS Amicus (Pet.) Argued 11/4/09 |
CO | 7/16/09 | Whether a prosecutor may be subjected to a civil trial and potential damages for a wrongful conviction and incarceration where the prosecutor allegedly (1) violated a criminal defendant’s 'substantive due process' rights by procuring false testimony during … | Yes |
| NRA v. City of Chicago | 08-1497 | SCOTUS Cert | TX | 7/6/09 | Whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable … | Yes |
| Perdue v. Kenny A. | 08-970 | SCOTUS Merits | AL | 6/24/09 | Whether a reasonable attorney’s fee award under a federal fee-shifting statute can ever be enhanced based solely on quality of performance and results obtained when these factors already are included in the lodestar calculation. | Yes |
| United States v. Stevens | 08-769 | SCOTUS Merits | FL | 6/12/09 | At issue is whether the federal statute making it unlawful to create, sell, or possess, for commercial gain, a depiction of a live animal being intentionally wounded, tortured, or killed is facially invalid under the First Amendment. | Yes |
| Salazar v. Buono | 08-472 | SCOTUS Cert | IN | 6/8/09 | 1. Whether respondent has standing to maintain this action where he has no objection to the public display of a cross, but instead is offended that the public land on which the cross is located is not also an open forum on which other persons might display other symbols. 2. Whether, even assuming respondent has standing, the court of appeals erred in refusing to give effect to the Act of Congress providing for the transfer of the land to private hands. | Authored |
| Alvarez v. Smith, et al | 08-361 | SCOTUS Merits | IL | 5/15/09 | At issue is whether the court of appeals properly invalidated Illinois’ Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act because the Act does not provide for a prompt “probable cause to detain” hearing between the seizure and the initiation of forfeiture proceedings | Yes |
| Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Lexington Coal Co., LLC | 08-1254 | SCOTUS Cert | MI | 5/11/09 | The petition seeks review of a Sixth Circuit decision holding that a party that agreed to provide a benefit to the Debtor during its Chapter 11 proceeding could not receive administrative status (and thus a right to full payment) for payments that come due after confirmation (or liquidation). | Yes |
| Avinash Rangra et al v. Brown, DA; Abbott, TX AG | 06-51587 | US 5th Cir | LA | 5/8/09 | Rangra would subject Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi Open Meetings Laws to strict scrutiny as content-based speech regulations under the First Amendment. It would also be the first-of-its-kind precedent for subjecting any other State’s open meetings law to that rigorous constitutional justification, contrary to the decisions of at least three state supreme courts. Thus, it is in the States’ interests to urge the Fifth Circuit to rehear the case and correct the panel’s erroneous decision. | Yes |
| Maryland v. Shatzer | 08-680 | SCOTUS Cert | FL | 4/17/09 | The question presented is: Is the Edwards v. Arizona prohibition against interrogation of a suspect who has invoked the Fifth Amendment right to counsel inapplicable if, after the suspect asks for counsel, there is a break in custody or a substantial lapse in time (more than two years and six months) before commencing reinterrogation pursuant to Miranda? | Yes |
| Cuomo v. Clearing House Assn. | 08-453 | SCOTUS Merits | NC | 3/3/09 | At issue is whether the National Bank Act, which prohibits states from exercising “visitorial powers” over national banks except in certain specified situations, preempts state enforcement of state laws against national banks even when the state laws are not substantively preempted. | Yes |
| Weigel v. Broad, et al | 08-1128 | SCOTUS Cert | IN | 2/27/09 | The petition will seek review of a Tenth Circuit decision that denied qualified immunity to police officers who were sued under Section 1983 for using excessive force. The petition will argue that the Tenth Circuit decision failed to apply the criteria set forth in Scott v. Harris and wrongly held that proactive training on the risks of a particular law enforcement technique amount to clearly established law that the technique is unlawful. | Authored |
| Rivera v. The People of the State of Illinois | 07-9995 | SCOTUS Merits | FL | 1/26/09 | Whether the erroneous denial of a criminal defendant's peremptory challenge that resulted in the challendged juror being seated requires automatic reversal of a conviction. | Yes |