Supreme Court of the United States Jurisdiction

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court Decides United States v. Wong

On April 22, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided United States v. Wong, No. 13-1074, together with United States v. June, No. 13-1075, holding that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s time limits are not jurisdictional...more

Supreme Court Rejects FERC’s Preemption Argument and Permits State Antitrust Claims Against Interstate Pipelines to Proceed

On April 21, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in ONEOK, Inc., et al., v. Learjet, Inc. et al holding that state antitrust claims are not pre-empted by the Natural Gas Act. This important decision put the brakes on an...more

Supreme Court Opens Door to Increased Role for State Courts and State Regulators in the Energy Sector

The Supreme Court today allowed the states a greater role in regulating the energy sector. In ONEOK, the Court held that states can regulate activities that affect both wholesale and retail transactions to the extent that the...more

Landowners, Developers Win Big In Wetlands Case

Building on a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Eighth Circuit ruled on April 10th that Clean Water Act jurisdictional determinations made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can be challenged in a “pre-enforcement”...more

Supreme Court Asked to Clarify the Reach of U.S. Antitrust Laws to Foreign Conduct

On March 16, 2015, AU Optronics Corporation America Inc. (AU Optronics) and Motorola Mobility LLC separately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) and the extent to which...more

March Madness for Foreign Companies: Supreme Court asked to resolve Circuit Split on Reach of FTAIA

The Supreme Court has been urged to resolve a circuit split concerning the reach of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) to foreign conduct that may affect U.S. commerce. Motorola this week filed a petition...more

Litigant Consent and the Power of the Bankruptcy Court

The Supreme Court is currently considering the case of Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Shariff. As discussed in the blog post on February 16, 2015, at issue in the Wellness International Network case is “whether...more

Corporate and Financial Weekly Digest - Volume X, Issue 9

In this issue: - Meeting of the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies - Financial Action Task Force Publishes Updated List of Deficient Jurisdictions - CFTC to Host Roundtable on...more

Appellate Practice Roundup - February 2015

Over the past few months, a number of important appellate procedure opinions have issued in federal and California appellate courts regarding posttrial motions, appealability, and appellate jurisdiction under various...more

Stern with a Twist: Supreme Court to Consider Constitutional Authority of Bankruptcy Courts

The Supreme Court has an opportunity to clarify the constitutionality of the allocation of power between federal district courts and bankruptcy courts....more

High Court Finds Plausible Showing of Amount in Controversy Sufficient to Remove Action

In a decision that may make it somewhat easier for defendants to remove putative class actions from state to federal court, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that defendants in such cases do not need to offer evidence in their...more

Are you defending suits where you don’t belong?

The United States Supreme Court turned conventional wisdom on its head about the reach of personal jurisdiction 12 months ago in its unanimous opinion in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). Personal jurisdiction...more

Supreme Court Holds Trademark Tacking is a Question, like any Inquiry from the Perspective of an Ordinary Purchaser or Consumer,...

Background: In a priority contest between trademark owners, the owner of a mark is entitled to “tack on” earlier use of a similar mark provided that the two marks are sufficiently similar. Some circuits treated the question...more

High Court Reaffirms Local Government's Authority in Denials of Applications for Cell Towers

Decision Clarifies that Local Government’s Decision Need Not State Reasons if they are Contemporaneously Published Elsewhere - A local government need not state the reasons for its denial of a new cell-tower...more

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Same-Sex Marriage Laws

It was announced today that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider two important questions relating to same-sex marriage–whether states are required to allow same-sex marriages within their jurisdictions, and whether states are...more

Supreme Court Update: Jennings V. Stephens And Order List

Greetings, Court fans! We're back with breaking news on the certiorari front, along with a summary of one of Wednesday's decisions, Jennings v. Stephens (13-7211), on the application of certain longstanding principles of...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Class Action Removal Pleading Standard

The US Supreme Court recently held that under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a defendant need not provide proof of the amount in controversy in its notice of removal to federal court. Only a plausible allegation is...more

Eleventh Circuit Affirms CAFA-Based Remand Order

Just two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a CAFA-based remand order where the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the...more

Preemption and Primary Jurisdiction After Pom Wonderful

After the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., __ U.S. __, 134 S.Ct. 2228 (2014), fear arose among national marketers that the decision would produce a wave of class actions challenging food,...more

Third Circuit Weighs In On Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards Applicable to Cases Removed Under CAFA

Days before the Supreme Court’s decision addressing the requirements for CAFA notices of removal in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, the Third Circuit addressed the evidentiary requirements for surviving a...more

Supreme Court Establishes New Standards: Removal Pleadings Now Less Burdensome For State Court Suits

Last week, the United States Supreme Court held that a notice of removal from state court to federal court requires only pleading good faith allegations that the amount in controversy exceeds a jurisdictional threshold. The...more

Who Needs Proof? Not The Notice of Removal.

In a previous blog, we explained that the Supreme Court was considering whether a defendant merely has to allege jurisdictional facts or provide evidence regarding the amount in controversy when removing a case....more

Supreme Court Clarifies the Standard Governing Removal of Class Action Cases to Federal Court

The US Supreme Court ruled last Monday that class action defendants need not provide evidentiary submissions in support of their attempts to remove a case from state to federal court. Rather, they need only include in their...more

Supreme Court Update: Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. V. Owens (13-719) And Heien V. North Carolina (13-604)

Greetings, Court fans Long before he became Chief, John Roberts quipped that "[o]nly Supreme Court justices and schoolchildren are expected to and do take the entire summer off." Right now, the Justices are in the midst...more

Removing a Barrier: The Supreme Court Holds That, Under CAFA, Notices of Removal Need Not Include Evidence Supporting the Amount...

On December 15, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens that a class action defendant need only allege the requisite amount of controversy “plausibly” in the notice of...more

131 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 6

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×