ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> SCOTUSBLOG

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Federal Judiciary

: SCOTUSBLOG

Notable Petitions

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

ADVERTISEMENTS

The following three noteworthy petitions were recently filed: Rodrequis Armani Council v. United States (09-936), Louisiana Safety Association of Timbermen – Self Insurers Fund v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (09-945), and Jaskolski v. Daniels (09-946).  Briefs in opposition have not yet been filed, but the questions presented and links to the petitions follow the jump.

Title: Rodrequis Armani Council v. United States
Docket: 09-936
Issue: Whether a Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)) prosecution of local robberies that have only a de minimis effect on interstate commerce is an unconstitutional exercise of federal power.  [The United States waived its right to file a response to the petition, which has been distributed for the March 19 conference.]

Title: Louisiana Safety Association of Timbermen – Self Insurers Fund v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London
Docket: 09-945
Issue: Whether Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act is an “Act of Congress” subject to the anti-preemption provision of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

Title: Jaskolski v. Daniels
Docket: 09-946
Issues: (1) Whether the court below erred in holding that one of the petitioners was an “independent contractor” rather than an “employee of the government,” such that the United States had no authority to supervise or control the manner in which he interrogated federal grand jury witnesses, reviewed grand jury materials, or managed documents or witnesses at a federal criminal trial; and (2) whether the same court erred by including in the definition of “employee of the government” the additional burden of proving that the federal government “pressed [the petitioner] into service” or “required” him to act?

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on March 05, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0126 secs (new cache)