Federal Judiciary

Notable Petitions

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

Three notable petitions were filed recently: one case arising from a police officer’s use of deadly force, Sammis v. Nance; and two cases about standing, City of Los Angeles v. Kern County (standing to assert a Commerce Clause challenge) and Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, Inc. v. Pedreira (standing to sue as a state taxpayer).

The petitions, the opinions below, and the questions presented follow the jump.  Briefs in opposition have not yet been filed.

Title: City of Los Angeles v. Kern County
Docket: 09-1111
Issue: Whether an in-state plaintiff lacks prudential standing under the “zone of interest” test to assert a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to a local ordinance that impedes the flow of commerce.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Title: Sammis v. Nance
Docket: 09-1115
Issues: (1) Whether a police officer may be held liable on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to prevent another officer?s use of force when that force was used within a short period such that a reasonable officer in the same circumstance would not have had a realistic opportunity to intervene; (2) whether the commands “get on the ground, drop the gun” are sufficient to satisfy the warning required prior to the use of deadly force; and (3) whether a party?s self-serving testimony that contradicts his or her prior statement is sufficient to create a fact question and thereby avoid an adverse summary judgment ruling on the defense of qualified immunity.

• Opinion below (8th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Title: Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, Inc. v. Pedreira
Docket: 09-1121
Issues: (1) Whether the “legislative enactment” nexus test–requiring a nexus between a taxpayer’s status and the type of “legislative enactment” he is challenging–applies to state taxpayers as it does to federal taxpayers; and (2) whether Article III confers upon federal courts broader authority to address alleged Establishment Clause violations by state legislatures than to address such violations by Congress.

• Opinion below (6th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on April 06, 2010 (boomark / email).