October Term 2004

Dec/Arg*

Name of Case

Disp

L.Ct.

S/P/J

O'C

Total

11-9/10-12

Leocal v. Ashcroft--18:16, mens rea, INS;

9 to 0

11-9/10-6

Norfolk South. v. Kirby--Juris, Cnt, (SJ)

9 to 0

11-30/10-5

Koons Buick v. Nigh--TILA, 15:1640; lia cap

(7+1) to 1

12-7/10-4

Kansas v. Colorado--H20 rights, Compact

Orig

C,D

C,CJ

(7+1) to 1

12-8/10-5

KP Perm v. Lasting Imp--Trdmk, burd prf (SJ)

9 to 0

12-13/10-4

Kowalski, J v. Tesmer--3d party standing

6 to 3

12-13/11-8

Devenpeck v. Alford--4thA, prob.cause

8 to 0

12-13/10-6

Cooper Ind. v. Aviall--CERCLA (SJ)

7 to 2

12-13/11-2

Florida v. Nixon--cap.case, 6th, eff of counsel

SCtFla

8 to 0

1-11/11/30

Whitfield v. U.S.--18:1956(h), conspiracy,overt 2

9 to 0

1-12/10-4

U.S. v. Booker--sent guidelines, 6thA 2 (USDC)

ARVR

7,1

X,D

x,D

X,D

x,D

1-12/10-12

Jama v. ICE--8:1231, removal of aliens (Somalia)

5 to 4

1-12/10-13

Clark v. Martinez--8:1231, Cubanaliensremoval (hc) 2

ARRR

9,11

7 to 2

1-24/11-10

Illinois v. Caballes--4thA, dog sniff, speeding tkt

SCtIll

6 to 2

1-24/11-1

IRS v. Banks--litigant's recovery, contingent fee 2

6,9

8 to 0

2-22/12-1

Smith v. Mass--DblJeo, judge corrected ruling IFP

MaApp

5 to 4

2-22/11-1

Stewart v. Dutra Const--"vessel" under LHWCA (SJ)

8 to 0

2-23/11-2

Johnson v. Calif--racial segregating prisoners, EP std

5 to 3

3-1/10-13

Roper v. Simmons--cap.pun.of minors

SCtMo

5 to 4

3-1/11-9

Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt--25:450, govcnt/appropri 2

ARRR

10,FC

8 to 0

3-2/1-11

Tenet v. Doe--suit for spy fees,Totten v.US (D,SJ)

9 to 0

3-7/11-8

Shepard v. U.S.--18:922(g)(1), sentencing IFP

CCJ

(4+1) to 3

3-7/12-7

Ballard v. IRS--Tax Court procedure 2

11,7

7 to 2

3-7/12-6

Wilkinson v. Dotson--42:1983 to challenge parole

8 to 1

3-22/12-8

Muehler v. Mena--4th, handcuffed, immigration Qs

(5+4) to 0

3-22/1-19

RanchoPalosVerdes v. Abrams--42:1983,47:332(c)(7)

(8+1) to 0

3-22/11-10

Brown v. Payton--h.c., stds of review under AEDPA

5 to 3

3-29/11-30

Jackson v. Birmingham Bd of Ed--TitleIX's I.P.R.A. (D)

5 to 4

3-29/1-11

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Ind.--purchase of Ind. land

8 to 1

3-30/11-3

Smith v. City of Jackson--ADEA, disparate impct (SJ)

CCJ

(4+4) to 0

. 30

Totals

Cases in bold face; Opinions in regular 36

Aff

State

Dec/Arg*

Name of Case

Disp

L.Ct.

S/P/J

O'C

Total

3-30/1-12

Rhines v. Weber--h.c., AEDPA, S/L IFP

CCJ

C,CCJ

(6+3) to 0

3-30/2-23

EXXON v. SaudiBasic--Rooker-Feldman doctrine (D)

9 to 0

4-4/1-18

Johnson v. U.S.--h.c.,AEDPA,sentencing gdlns IFP

5 to 4

4-4/12-1

Rousey et ux v. Jacoway--IRAs protected in Chap7

9 to 0

4-19/1-12

Dura Pharm. v. Broudo--"loss causation," 15:78u (D)

9 to 0

4-26/11-9

Pasquantino v. U.S.--18:1343, revenue rule, Can. tax

5 to 4

4-26/11-3

Small v. U.S.--18:922(g)(1), "in any court"=U.S.only

5 to 3

4-27/2-28

Pace v. DiGuglielmo--h.c., AEDPA, S/L IFP

5 to 4

4-27/1-10

Bates v. Dow Agro--FIFRA preemption (SJ)

CJ,D

7 to 2

5-16/12-7

Granholm v. Heald--CC, 21st A, interstate wine 3

A;RR

6; 2

5 to 4

5-23/2-22

Lingle v. Chevron--5th, 14th "takings" cl Agins (SJ)

9 to 0

5-23/12-8

Johanns v. L.M.A.--1st A, mandatory checkoff 2

(5+1) to 3

5-23/1-19

Clingman v. Beaver--1st A, semi-closed primaries

CCJ

(4+2) to 3

5-23/3-1

Deck v. Missouri--DP, shackles during sentencing IFP

SCt.Mo

7 to 2

5-31/4-27

Arthur Andersen v. U.S.--18:1512, "corruptly persade"

9 to 0

5-31/3-21

Cutter v. Wilkinson--1st A Est. Cl., RLUIPA, prison (D) IFP

9 to 0

5-31/3-22

Tory v. Cochran--1st A, slander injunction, mootness

Ca.CA

(P)

7 to 2

6-6/11-29

Gonzales v. Raich--CC, state marijuana laws

(5+1) to 3

6-6/1-10

Alaska v. U.S.--title to submerged land

Orig

C,D

6 to 3

6-6/2-28

Spector v. Norwegian Cruise--ADA, foreign flag ships(D)

CCJ

CDCJ

6-13/4-18

Johnson v. Cal.--EP, jury selection, prima facie case IFP

CA.C

8 to 1

6-13/4-19

Bradshaw v. Stumpf--DP, capital case procedure hc

RVR

9 to 0

6-13/4-20

Merck v. Integra--patent infringement, 35:271(e)(1)

9 to 0

6-13/3-30

Wilkinson v. Austin--42:1983,14thDP,supermax prison

ARR

9 to 0

6-13/12-6

Miller-El v. Dretke--EP jury selection, Batson, hc IFP

6 to 3

6-13/4-18

Grable v. Darue--IRS tax sale, state v. 1331 juris SJ

9 to 0

6-20/3-28

San Remo Hotel v. San Fran--takings, ripeness, juris

(5+4) to 0

6-20/3-22

Dodd v. U.S.--28:2255 hc, S/L timely filing IFP

5 to 4

6-20/1-18

Rompilla v. Beard--6th, cap. penalty, ineff.asst., hc IFP

5 to 4

6-20/4-20

Graham County v. Wilson--31:3729(a), approp. S/L (D)

(6+1) to 2

Totals

Dec/Arg*

Name of Case

Disp

L.Ct.

S/P/J

O'C

Total

6-20/4-26

ATA v. Mich.P.S.C.--fee on intrastate trucks, dormant CC

Mi.CA

(7+2) to 0

6-20/4-26

Mid-Con v. Mich.P.S.C.--fee on interstate trucks,preempt

Mi.CA

6 to 3

6-23/2-22

Kelo v. City of New London--5th A takings, public use

CnSCt

5 to 4

6-23/4-25

Gonzalez v. Crosby--AEDPA, hc, S/L IFP

7 to 2

6-23/3-1

EXXON v. Allapattah--1332 juris amt req; 1367 2

A; RR

11; 1

5 to 4

6-23/2-23

Orff v. U.S.--43:390uu, sov. imm., fed C/L, 3d standing(D)

9 to 0

6-23/4-25

Halbert v. Michigan--DP, EP,rt to atty on disc.app. IFP

Mi.CA

6 to 3

6-23/4-19

Mayle v. Felix--AEDPA, S/L hc

7 to 2

6-27/3-2

Van Orden v. Perry--1st A,10 Commandments Statue

(4+1) to 4

6-27/3-21

Castle Rock v. Gonzales--42:1983, DP, police enforce (D)

7 to 2

6-27/4-26

Bell v. Thompson--FRAppP 41, stay of mandate, hc

5 to 4

6-27/3-2

McCreary Cty, Ky v. ACLU--10 Commandments, 42:1983

5 to 4

6-27/3-29

MGM v. Grokster--"Napster" software liability SJ

9 to 0

6-27/3-29

NCTA v. Brand X--FCC reg of cable broadband,47:153

6 to 3

· KEY TO INFORMATION. This chart presents a brief account of each case in which the Supreme Court issues a signed written opinion. It is necessarily cryptic in spots. Moving from left to right on the chart, the first column indicates the number of signed written opinion in the term (74).

· The second column indicates, first, the date on which the opinion was issued and, second, after the slash, the date of the case’s oral argument.

· The third column contains much information in addition to an abbreviated style of the case. The abbreviated name of the statute might be indicated or the abbreviated citation (12:258=Title 12, Section 258 of the United States Code) or some other brief indication of what the case was about. HC=habeas corpus. IFP=In forma Pauperis. D=dismissed in the lower court. SJ=summary judgment in the lower court. 2 (or 3 and so on)=two or more separate cases or petitions were joined and decided in one opinion.

· The fourth column indicates the disposition of the case: A=Affirmed, R=Reversed, V=Vacated, or in original cases, the Decree or other ruling. Typically, but not always, Affirmed cases are not remanded and Vacated cases are. Some Reversed cases are remanded and others are not. Some cases are Affirmed in part and, perhaps, Reversed in part or Vacated in part. The second (or last) “R” indicates that the case was remanded. Thus, RR=Reversed and Remanded; ARR=Affirmed in part and Reversed and Remanded in part, and so on.

· The fifth column indicates the Court which last decided the case. Where there is only a number, as is the case for most of the opinions, the number stands for the number of the Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals whose decision is being reviewed.

· An X in the sixth column indicates that the court decided an issue of constitutional law to decide the case.

· For cases that do not turn on a constitutional issue, even where the parties to the case include a constitutional issue for the Court’s consideration, the S, P, and J in the seventh column indicate the nature of the issue(s) upon which the Court decided the case: S=a statutory or substantive non-constitutional issue; P=a procedural issue; J=a jurisdictional issue.

· The eighth column indicates criminal cases.

· Columns nine to seventeen indicate the positions of the individual justices; from the ninth, Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy, O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. A large X indicates the justice wrote the opinion of the court or, where there is only a plurality opinion, announced the judgment of the Court and wrote a plurality opinion. A small x indicates that the justice simply joined the majority opinion or the aforementioned plurality opinion. C=concurring opinion; that is, the justice joined the majority opinion but also wrote a separate opinion. CJ=the justice wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment. D=the justice wrote a separate dissenting opinion. Then combinations of the aforesaid: e.g., CCJ=the justice wrote an opinion concurring in part of the majority (or plurality opinion) and concurring in the judgment; C,D=the justice wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. CDCJ=concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment. Justices who join another justice’s separate opinion are indicated by the notation just explained but with no underlining. Which particular concurring, dissenting, or other separate opinion they join is not indicated here. NP=did not participate in the decision of the case.

· The final vote on the case. As a formality, if any justice dissents even to only part of the majority opinion, that justice’s position is tallied as a dissent to the whole opinion. This often is misleading because many cases turn on more than one issue, and a justice or all the justices might agree on the resolution of one of the issues but a minority of justices will dissent on another issue. The chart is not intended to capture that degree of detail. Serious research requires the reading of all the opinions in a case and then doing the nose-counting on each issue. If two numbers are enclosed in parentheses, this is the sum of the justices who joined the majority or plurality opinion and the justices who separately concurred in the judgment. Thus, (4+2) to 3 indicates that the opinion was a plurality opinion which four justices joined, two justices concurred in the judgment, and three justices dissented. Justices who concur separately, as distinguished from separately concurring in the judgment, are treated here as joining the majority or plurality opinion and are not separately represented in this Total Vote column.
Last Updated on 7/11/2010
By William S. Miller
Email: william.miller@millerpolitics.info