Federal Judiciary

Petitions to Watch | Conference of 6.5.08

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 June 5. 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 lists for the upcoming conferences of May 22 and May 29, visit our archives here on SCOTUSwiki.

(Note: in addition to the petitions listed below, the Court has also distributed two petitions previously mentioned on our watch list: AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan v. West (07-663) from the January 18 conference, and Anderson v. Cagle?s Inc. (07-910) from the March 14 conference.)

Conference of June 5, 2008

__________________

Docket: 06-1398
Case name: AT&T Pension Benefit Plan v. Call
Issue: Whether the court below was required to defer to the plan administrator?s interpretation of the plan, and whether it erroneously awarded prejudgment interest.

• Opinion below (7th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply
• Brief amici curiae of the American Benefits Council, et al. (in support of the petitioner)
• Brief amicus curiae of the United States (recommending denial of certiorari)
• Supplemental brief of petitioner AT&T Pension Benefit Plan

__________________

Docket: 07-1008
Case name: McNeil v. Ferreira
Issue: Whether a prisoner?s resentencing creates a new one year statute of limitations to file a habeas petition in federal court.

• Opinion below (11th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 07-1014
Case name: Tyson Foods, Inc. v. de Ascencio, et al.
Issue: Whether the time spent donning light protective gear constitutes ?work? under the Fair Labor Standards Act if the activities do not require a significant level of exertion. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the petitioner)

• Opinion below (3rd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

__________________

Docket: 07-1019
Case name: Gorman, Jr., et al. v. Consolidation Edison Corporation, et al.
Issue: Whether, under federal labor and employment laws, time spent ?donning? and ?doffing? gear is only compensable for unique equipment and/or jobs presenting lethal dangers.

• Opinion below (2nd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

__________________

Docket: 07-1107
Case name: Board of Trustees of the Ohio Carpenters? Pension Fund v. Bucci
Issue: Whether the U.S. Bankruptcy Code excludes from discharge debts an employer owes for failing to contribute to employee benefit funds.

• Opinion below (6th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

__________________

Docket: 07-1114
Case name: Cone v. Bell
Issue: Whether a federal habeas claim is ?procedurally defaulted? because it has been presented twice to the state courts, and whether a federal habeas court is powerless to recognize that a state court erred in holding that state law precludes reviewing a claim. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the petitioner)

• Opinion below (6th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply (forthcoming)
• Brief amicus curiae of Veterans for America (in support of the petition)
• Brief amicus curiae of Former Prosecutors (in support of the petition)

__________________

Docket: 07-1125
Case name: Fitzgerald, et vir v. Barnstable School Committee, et al.
Issue: Whether Title IX precludes Section 1983 constitutional claims to remedy sex discrimination in educational settings.

• Opinion below (1st Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

__________________

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on May 21, 2008 (boomark / email).