|
A case raising numerous public policy issues relating to the funding of public, higher education institutions and debtor/creditor relationships as well as a case regarding one's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination will be among oral arguments heard this week before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, which provides free public access to a vast collection of U.S. laws, court decisions and related legal materials on its website at www.law.cornell.edu is now offering free details on high profile cases before they are argued at the nation's high courts.
The synopses of cases currently before the U.S. Supreme Court are written by the editorial board of the liibulletin, the school's electronic journal. The board comprises second and third year law students.
Cases before the Court this week include:
BANKRUPTCY, ELEVENTH AMENDMENT, STATE SOVEREIGNTY
Central Virginia Community College v. Katz (04-885)
Oral argument date: October 31, 2005
After filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy, Wallace's Bookstores, Inc., formerly a national, private supplier of college books, filed complaints against four public higher education institutions in Virginia. As Wallace's court appointed liquidator, Mr. Katz sought to recover money owed by the Virginia Institutions. The Virginia Institutions argue that as a private party, Mr. Katz cannot sue the state or "arms of the state" without abrogating the states' sovereign immunity guaranteed under the Eleventh Amendment. They maintain that without consent, states cannot be sued by private parties. Mr. Katz denies being classified as a private party and argues that Article I's
provisions and purpose of uniform bankruptcy laws across states are an exception. This case raises numerous public policy issues relating to funding of public, higher education institutions and debtor/creditor relationships.
Continues: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-885.html
UNFAIR PRICE COMPETITION, ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, COMPETITIVE BIDDING PRACTICES, HEAVY TRUCKS
Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. (04-905)
Oral argument date: October 31, 2005
In 1995, Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. and Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. entered into a five-year franchise agreement authorizing Reeder as an official Volvo heavy truck dealer. Volvo manufacturers its heavy trucks only after a retail customer solicits bids from several Volvo dealers and accepts a bid. This sort of "competitive bidding" process is an industry-wide practice, and Volvo offers price concessions throughout the process. Reeder claims that Volvo discriminated against the dealership by offering it smaller price concessions. Reeder claims this not only resulted in a loss of business for Reeder, but also violated the Robinson-Patman Act. A jury trial resulted in a victory for Reeder, and a divided Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Reeder's claims. Volvo appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. In its decision, the Supreme Court will help define who receives protection
under the Robinson-Patman Act, as well as the amount and kind of evidence a plaintiff will need to produce for this type of claim.
Continues: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-905.html
FIFTH AMENDMENT, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, MIRANDA RIGHTS, RIGHT TO COUNSEL
Maryland v. Blake (04-373)
Oral argument date: November 1, 2005
When the Annapolis Police arrested Leeander Blake, he invoked his right to remain silent until granted access to an attorney. While Blake was still in custody, and after Blake had invoked his right to remain silent, an officer made an inappropriate remark to him. However, the officer leading the investigation swiftly rebuked this officer, in
front of Blake, for his remark. Shortly thereafter, Blake made incriminating statements without an attorney that the State sought to use against him. Under Edwards v. Arizona, a suspect who has invoked his right to remain silent cannot later waive that right unless he initiates the conversation and does so knowingly and intelligently. The Court must decide whether the supervising officer's curative remarks in this case sufficiently restored Blake's rights prior to Blake's incriminating statements.
Continues: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-373.html
CIVIL PROCEDURE, SEVENTH AMENDMENT, JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 50(A), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE RULE 50(B)
Unitherm Food Systems v. Swift Eckrich (04-597)
Oral argument date: November 2, 2005
Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure empowers a judge to determine an issue herself, rather than submitting it to the jury, when the evidence is insufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude to the contrary. When the judge's determination of the particular issue makes it impossible for the losing party to prevail in its overall claim or defense, the judge will enter a "judgment as a matter of law" against
the party. Because such a judgment deprives the losing party of its constitutional right to a jury trial, the rules governing the exercise of Rule 50(a) power are very important. This case addresses a significant question about these rules: may a court of appeal review the sufficiency of evidence presented at trial, when a party loses a
pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a), but then fails to renew the motion under Rule 50(b) after the jury has reached a verdict? The Supreme Court's resolution will greatly impact the speed and quality of review of trial court decisions by courts of appeal, as well as the power these courts possess to overturn improper verdicts.
Continues: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-597.html
SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILTY, STUDENT LOAN, DEBT, HIGHER EDUCATION ACT, DEBT COLLECTION IMPROVEMENT ACT, SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
Lockhart v. United States (04-881)
Oral argument date: Nov. 2, 2005
The language of the Higher Education Assistance Act clearly countermands
any statute of limitations found in other statutes or administrative law that may bar the government from collecting, through administrative asset or garnishment, outstanding student loan debt. However, the amended Debt Collection Act, the Debt Collection Improvement Act, which was passed after the Higher Education Assistance Act, included language that expressly prevented administrative offset of social security benefits if the claim was outstanding for more than 10 years. The Eighth and Ninth Circuits disagree as to whether the 10 year statute of limitations applies to prevent offset of social security benefits. If Congress intended to protect social security benefits from administrative offset, then seriously delinquent debtors will be
excused from repayment in this fashion. However, should the Court decide that Congress intended to prospectively abrogate the statute of limitations when it passed the Higher Education Assistance Act, then the government will be able to collect overdue student loans by withholding a certain amount from the debtor's social security benefits. Either way, statutory safeguards exist to protect those beneficiaries whose sole income is social security from offsets of excessive amounts.
Continues: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-881.html
10-31-05
© 2005 North
Country Gazette
|
