Federal Judiciary

Re-list watch

By John Elwood

Most of the interesting things on today?s order list appeared on last week?s relists, including both of today?s grants (Reynolds v. United States, 10-6549, relisted 1/7, 1/14; and Howes v. Fields, 10-680, relisted 1/14), and today?s summary reversal in Swarthout v. Cooke, 10-333. 

Two of the cases from last weeks? relists appear to have been relisted once again.   It is hard to be certain at this point because the Court has not yet updated either its online docket or its telephone information system. 

If a case has been relisted once, it generally means that the Court is paying close attention to the case, and the chances of a grant are higher than for an average case.  But once a case has been relisted more than twice, it is generally no longer a likely candidate for plenary review, and is more likely to result in a summary reversal or a dissent from the denial of cert.

Today?s relisted cases appear to be:

Title: Sheets v. Simpson (relisted after 1/7 and 1/14 Conferences; apparent relist after 1/21)
Docket: 10-458
Issue(s): (1) Whether a prison inmate is in ?custody? for Miranda purposes if law enforcement officers isolate and question him about criminal conduct occurring outside the prison but impose no additional restraints or coercive pressures beyond those inherent in ordinary prison confinement; and (2) whether a police officer violates clearly established Miranda law by advising a defendant who asks him whether a polygraph examination will confirm the veracity of the defendant?s statements that defendant will not have any trouble if his statements are truthful, but that he should terminate the examination and consult an attorney if he is lying.

Certiorari stage documents:

• Opinion below (6th Cir.)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of Michigan, et al.
• Petitioner?s reply

Title: Roberts v. Kauffman Racing Equipment, LLC (relisted after 1/14 Conference; apparent relist after 1/21 Conference)
Docket: 10-617
Issue(s): Whether the Due Process Clause permits a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant based solely on a claim that the defendant committed an intentional tort on the Internet knowing that the plaintiff resided in the forum State.

Certiorari stage documents:

• Opinion below (Ohio Supreme Court)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of the Center for Democracy & Technology
• Petitioner?s reply

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on January 24, 2011 (boomark / email).