College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2002 Section 10: Miscellaneous Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 10: Miscellaneous" (2002). Supreme Court Preview. 153. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/153 Copyright c 2002 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview MISCELLANEOUS In This Section: Also This Term: Other Cases for the 2002-2003 Term 0 1- 18 8 Phann tica Research v Cnann 680 01-270 YellowTransportation Inc v Mihign 680 01-593 DdleFoodCa u Patrideson;01-594 Dead Sea Ca v Patrikson 680 01-704 United States u Bean 681 01-705 Barnhart, Soa Sounty A d"in Conssioner v Peabady Codl Co. 681 0 1-715 Hdland u Bellaire Corp. 01-757 Syngeta Cwp PrtectionInc v Heron 681 01-800 Hozamv Dean Wtter Reyndc, Inc. 682 01-896 FordMotor Ca v McCauley 682 01-1015 Mcey u V. Sart Ctalogue,Inc. 682 0 1- 1209 Boeing Ca v United States; 0 1- 13 8 2 United States Boing Sales Corp. 683 01-1269 Cuythog Fall u Budkeee Community Hope 683 01-1418 Anheru Warner 684 01-1491 Denvv Kim 684 01-1500 layv UnitedStates 685 01-1572 Code Cantya United States 685 0 1-7574 Sattazahn u Pennswnla 685 Justice Byron White BynR. White, LongtirreJutuAndaFoodullLeend Die at 84 Linda Greenhouse 686 Cort's Unanirzvrs Viewon "hite Legal Times 694 Sports of The Tirrs; Justice Byn White A Findand a Mentor Ira Berkow 696 678 'SoMuobfor History' Conpassionand Hwavr Fomr the Byron White the PublicDidn't See Dennis J. Hutchinson 698 Reflections at the End of the 2001-2002 Term Retimret Rwrms Swi A mund 3 Senior fustwas Mark Helm 702 Judical Inten; The Corepeting Vision afthe Rdofte Cot Linda Greenhouse 704 Rehnquist Joan Biskupic 707 Clawx Thams After Ten Yeas: Sonr Re)lain Stephen J. Wermeil 711 679 ALSO THIS TERM 01-188 Pharmaceutical Research v. Concannon Ruling Below: (Pharmaceutical Research v. Concannon, 1 Cir., 249 F.3d 66, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 9324) The court held that the state prescription drug-pricing program was not an unconstitutional violation of the commerce clause. Questions Presented: (1) Does a state pricing program for prescription drugs conflict with the federal Medicaid statute? (2) May a state require an out-of-state manufacturer who sells to an out-of-state wholesaler to pay the state each time a retailer in the state sells one of the manufacturer's products? 01-270 Yellow Transportation, Inc. v. Michigan Ruling Below: (Yellow Freight Sys. v. Michigan, MI Sup.Ct., 464 Mich. 21, 627 N.W.2d 236, 2001 Mich. Lexis 883) The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) froze the amount of money states could charge trucking companies at the fee the state collected or charged as of Nov. 15, 1991. It also established the Single State Registration System, by which each company only had to register its vehicles with one state and that state would collect fees and distribute them to states through which the company's vehicles passed. The court held that any reciprocal agreements that the state had which might have reduced the economic impact of the generic fee were irrelevant. The plain meaning of the ISTEA was applicable. Question Presented: Whether the Michigan Supreme Court erred in holding that only a State's "generic" fee is relevant to determining the fee that was "collected or charged as of November 15, 1991" under Congress's Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)? 01-593 Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson 01-594 Dead Sea Co. v. Patrickson Ruling Below: (Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 9th Cir., 251 F.3d 795, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 11207, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4353; 2001 DailyJournal DAR 5357) The court held that it did not have jurisdiction over the issue as framed by the plaintiffs. Question Presented: Whether federal courts have jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act over a class action by foreign workers, who have allegedly been exposed to toxic pesticides, against multinational companies? 680 01-704 United States v. Bean Ruling Below: (Bean v. BATF, 5 Cir., 253 F.3d 234, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 13804) The court held that because the plaintiff's administrative options had been exhausted, regardless of the reasons, the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting relief to the plaintiff. Question Presented: Whether a federal district court (which normally handles appeals from the ATF) has authority to exempt a convicted felon from the prohibition against possessing firearms in light of annual appropriations limitations from Congress that keep the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) from having funds to process applications for such exemptions? 01-705 Barnhart, Social Security Admin. Commissioner v. Peabody Coal Co. 01-715 Holland v. Bellaire Corp. Ruling Below: (Bellaire Corp. v. Mfassanari, 6th Cir., 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 14784, 14 Fed. Appx. 424) (Peabody Coal Co. v. Massanari, 6th Cir., 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 14471, 14 Fed. Appx. 393) The court granted summary judgment for the coal companies in both cases because the commissioner lacked the authority to make assignments after October 1, 1993. Question Presented: Whether the failure of the Commissioner of Social Security to assign responsibility as of October 1, 1993, as required by legislation, for each eligible retired coal miner to the signatory operator that employed the miner (or to a "related person" of the signatory operator) voids the benefits? 01-757 Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. v. Henson Ruling Below: (Henson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 11 Cir., 261 F.3d 1065, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 18344, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1094) The court held that the action before that state lacked any issue of original jurisdiction for a federal court, and that the federal district court did not gain removal jurisdiction simply because the state action was inconsistent with a federal settlement. Question Presented: Whether the federal district court had removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and the All Writs Act over a later action solely because prosecuting that action violated a settlement stipulation in an earlier action already before the court? 681 01-800 Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. Ruling Below: (Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Howsam, 1 0 ,h Cir., 261 F.3d 956, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 17971, 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R 4033) The court held that the arbitrability of issues in a service agreement is to be decided the courts, not the arbitrators of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). The court should decide whether an issue is time-barred under the NASD rules unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended otherwise. Question Presented: Whether the court has the jurisdiction to decide issues of arbitrability as set forth under the NASD rules of arbitration? 01-896 Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley Ruling Below: (McCauleyv. Ford Motor Co., 9 ,h Cir., 264 F.3d 952, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 19700, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7862, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 9731) Credit cardholders claimed the issuers wrongly terminated the ability to accrue rebates towards purchasing vehicles. The court found no jurisdiction because the claims of the class could not be aggregated nor could the cost of reinstating the program for all cardholders could not be used to establish the amount in controversy. Question Presented: May the cost to a defendant of complying with an injunction sought by a plaintiffs' class satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement of the federal diversity statute, when such compliance would cost the defendant more than the $75,000 minimum whether it covered the entire class or any single member of class? 01-1015 Moseley v. V. Secret Catalogue, Inc. Ruling Below: (V. Secret Catalogue v. Moseley, 6 h Cir., 259 F.3d 464, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 16937, 2001 Fed App. 0247P (6th Cir.), 59 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1650) Defendant marketed adult products under the name Victor's Little Secret. Plaintiff's Victoria's Secret catalogue marketed women's lingerie and clothing. The court held the Federal Trademark Dilution Act requires only an inference of likely harm, not a showing of actual harm. Similarities between the marks in this case supported a finding of dilution. Question Presented: Does the plain meaning of the operative phrase "causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark," read in conjunction with the definition of dilution as "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods and services," require objective proof of actual injury to economic value of the famous mark (as opposed to a presumption of harm arising from subjective "likelihood of dilution" standard) as a precondition to any and all relief under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act? 682 01-1209 Boeing Co. v. United States 01-1382 United States v. Boeing Sales Corp. Ruling Below: (Boeing Co. v. U.S., 9 " Cir., 258 F.3d 958; 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 17168; 2001-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,562; 88 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5317; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6537; 2001 DailyJournal DAR 8046) The court held that the Treasury Regulation was permissible under the Internal Revenue Code, and that Boeing's allocation of costs was in violation of the regulation.