|
|
| American Law Sources On-line |
|
|
United States — Amicus Curiae Briefs
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page provides links to on-line versions of amicus curiae briefs (along with selected pleadings and briefs by parties in some cases) that were filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal appellate courts, and state courts (including U.S. district courts) in the United States — which are listed here in that order; see the table of court links, below. A collection of scanned U.S. Supreme Court briefs (ostensibly focused on cases raising constitutional-law issues), starting with the 1999-2000 term, can be found at the FindLaw (West Group) web site.
Cases are listed in descending docket-number order for each court; that is, the most recently filed case is first. The case name is linked to a report of the courts decision if the report is freely available on the internet.
Note: For an exasperated jurists tart opinion on the abusive filing of amicus curiae briefs, see Posner, C.J., reaffirming denial of a motion for leave to file a brief in Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, No. 97-2120 (7th Cir. Sept. 16, 1997).
-
Monge v. California, No. 97-6146 (U.S. June 26, 1998)
- Decision: The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which is applicable in the capital-sentencing context [see Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430 (1981)], does not extend to noncapital-sentencing proceedings.
-
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, No. 97-1252 (U.S. n.d.)
- Issue: Do the U.S. district courts have jurisdiction to address challenges to deportation proceedings prior to the entry of a final order of deportation?
-
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, No. 97-634 (U.S. June 15, 1998)
- Decision: State prisons fall squarely within the statutory definition of “public entity” in the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, since the definition includes “any . . . instrumentality of a State . . . or local government” [42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B)]. State prisoners’ claims of unlawful disability discrimination are legally cognizable.
-
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott, No. 97-581 (U.S. June 22, 1998)
- Decision: The exclusionary rule, which generally prohibits the introduction at a criminal trial of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, does not apply in parole revocation hearings.
-
Ricci v. Village of Arlington Heights, No. 97-501, dismissed as improvidently granted (U.S. May 4, 1998)
- Issue:
-
Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, No. 97-300 (U.S. May 18, 1998)
- Decision: The restrictions on “second or successive” applications for federal habeas corpus relief found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, § 106(b) (Apr. 24, 1996), do not apply to a claim for relief under the holding of Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from inflicting the penalty of death upon a prisoner who is insane” [id. at 410].
-
Faragher v. Boca Raton, No. 97-282 (U.S. June 26, 1998)
- Decision:
-
Calderon v. Thompson, No. 97-215 (U.S. Apr. 29, 1998)
- Decision: 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, § 106(b) (Apr. 24, 1996), did not control the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to recall its mandate and grant a petition for habeas corpus relief that the court had previously denied (although that action was a “grave abuse of discretion” in the absence of evidence that otherwise a miscarriage of justice would occur).
-
Texas v. United States, No. 97-29 (U.S. Mar. 31, 1998)
- Decision:
-
Gray v. Maryland, No. 96-8653 (U.S. Mar. 9, 1998)
- Decision: The holding of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) — to wit: in a joint trial of two defendants accused of the same crime, one’s confession naming and incriminating the other cannot be used at all, even with a limiting instruction — applies equally when the non-confessing joint defendant’s name has been deleted from the confession before it is offered into evidence.
-
Bousley v. Brooks, No. 96-8516 (U.S. May 18, 1998)
- Decision:
-
Buchanan v. Angelone, No. 96-8400 (U.S. Jan. 21, 1998)
- Decision: The Eighth Amendment does not require that a capital jury be instructed on the concept of mitigating evidence generally, or on particular statutory mitigating factors.
-
Lindh v. Murphy, No. 96-6298 (U.S. June 23, 1997)
- Decision: 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, § 104 cl. (3) (Apr. 24, 1996), does not govern habeas corpus applications in non-capital cases that were already pending when the Act was passed.
-
Insultherm, Inc. v. Tank Insulation International, Inc., No. 96-1899, cert. denied (U.S. Oct. 6, 1997)
- Issue: Is an antitrust counterclaim a compulsory claim in a patent infringement action? See 104 F.3d 83 (5th Cir. 19—)
-
Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, No. 96-1769 (U.S. Mar. 25, 1998)
- Decision: [1] The holding of Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458 (1981), is reaffirmed — pardon and commutation decisions have not traditionally been the business of courts; as such, they are rarely, if ever, appropriate subjects for judicial review. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated where, as here, the procedures in question do no more than confirm that the clemency and pardon power is committed, as is our tradition, to the authority of the executive. [2] Giving an inmate the option of voluntarily participating in an interview as part of the clemency process does not violate the inmate’s Fifth Amendment rights.
-
Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., No. 96-1768 (U.S. Mar. 31, 1998)
- Decision: [1] There is no statutory right to a jury trial when a copyright owner elects to recover statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). [2] The Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages under that section, including the amount of damages.
-
Federal Election Commission v. Akins, No. 96-1690 (U.S. n.d.)
- Issue:
-
Quality King Distributors v. L'Anza Research International, Inc., No. 96-1470 (U.S. Mar. 9, 1998)
- Decision: The first-sale doctrine of 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) applies to imported copies.
-
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, No. 96-1337 (U.S. May 26, 1998)
- Decision: A police officer does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment guaranty of substantive due process by causing death through deliberate or reckless indifference to life in a high-speed automobile chase aimed at apprehending a suspected offender. In such circumstances, only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due-process violation.
-
United States v. Scheffer, No. 96-1133 (U.S. Mar. 31, 1998)
- Decision: Military Rule of Evidence 707 [excluding polygraph evidence in all military trials] does not unconstitutionally abridge the right of accused members of the military to present a defense.
-
Miller v. Albright, No. 96-1060 (U.S. Apr. 22, 1998)
- Decision:
-
State Oil Co. v. Khan, No. 96-871 (U.S. Nov. 4, 1997)
- Decision: Maximum resale price maintenance is not a per se violation of the Sherman Act.
-
Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, No. 96-779 (U.S. May 18, 1998)
- Decision: A state-owned public television broadcaster’s program televising a candidates’ debate was a nonpublic forum from which the broadcaster could exclude an independent candidate in the reasonable, viewpoint-neutral exercise of journalistic discretion.
-
Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway v. Taxman, No. 96-679, dismissed on motion of the parties (U.S. Dec. 2, 1997)
- Issue: Does the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, permit employers to take race into account for purposes other than remedying past discrimination?
-
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., No. 96-568 (U.S. Mar. 4, 1998)
- Decision:
-
Agostini v. Felton, No. 96-552 (U.S. June 23, 1997)
- Decision:
-
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, No. 96-511 (U.S. June 26, 1997)
- Appellees’ Brief (American Civil Liberties Union) •
Transcript of Oral Argument
- Decision: The Communications Decency Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-104, § 501 et seq. (Feb. 8, 1996)] unconstitutionally limits the First Amendment guaranty of freedom of speech.
-
Washington v. Glucksberg, No. 96-110 (U.S. June 26, 1997)
- Respondent’s Brief
- Decision: See Vacco v. Quill, No. 95-1858 (U.S. June 27, 1997), below.
-
Vacco v. Quill, No. 95-1858 (U.S. June 27, 1997)
- Respondent’s Brief
- Decision: The New York statute prohibiting physician-assisted suicide is not unconstitutional as written. See also Washington v. Glucksberg, No. 96-110 (U.S. June 26, 1997), above (Washington statute is not unconstitutional).
-
Maryland v. Wilson, No. 95-1268 (U.S. Feb, 19, 1997)
- Decision: An officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop. The rule of Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), applies to passengers as well as drivers.
-
Warner Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., No. 95-728, 520 U.S. 17 (1997)
- Decision: Because the Federal Circuit did not consider all of the requirements of the doctrine of equivalents as described by the Court in this case, particularly as related to prosecution history estoppel and the preservation of some meaning for each element in a claim, further proceedings are necessary.
-
Beadle v. City of Tampa, No. 94-1705 (U.S. n.d.)
- Issue:
-
Board of Education of the Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grimet, No. 93-517, 512 U.S. 687 (1994)
- Decision: A statute creating a special school district by following village lines for a religious enclave, which was incorporated as a village to exclude all but the members of the sect, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
-
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, No. 91-744, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
- Decision:
-
Weiss v. United States, No. 90-8287, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 842 (1994)
- Issue:
-
Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Department of Health, No. 88-1503, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)
- Decision: [1] The U.S. Constitution does not forbid Missouri to require that evidence of an incompetent’s wishes as to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment be proved by clear and convincing evidence. [2] The Due Process Clause does not require a State to accept the “substituted judgment” of close family members in the absence of substantial proof that their views reflect the patient's.
-
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, No. 88-605, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)
- Decision:
-
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., No. 82-914, 465 U.S. 752 (1984)
- Decision:
-
New York Magazine v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, No. 97-9511 (2nd Cir. n.d.)
- Issue:
-
Hyperlaw, Inc. v. West Publishing Co., No. 97-7910 (2nd Cir. n.d.)
-
Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., No. 97-7910 (2nd Cir. n.d.)
- Appellant’s Reply Brief • Additional Documents
- Issue: What is the extent of the copyright protection available to West Publishing Company with respect to the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeals that it publishes in the Supreme Court Reporter and the Federal Reporter Series? See also Oasis Publishing Co. v. West Publishing Co., No. 96-2887 (8th Cir. n.d.), below.
-
Shweizer v. Trans Union Corp., No. 97-7542 (2nd Cir. n.d.)
- Issue: Does a collection letter that allegedly simulates a telegram violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
-
Russman v. Board of Education of Watervliet, No. 95-7756 (2nd Cir. n.d.)
- Issue:
-
Leblanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, No. 94-7103L (2nd Cir. n.d.)
- Issue:
-
Greidinger v. Davis, No. 92-1571 (4th Cir. n.d.)
- Issue:
-
Guerra v. Johnson, No. 95-20443 (5th Cir. n.d.)
- Issue:
-
Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, No. 93-2881 (5th Cir. n.d.)
- Issue: Does a State waives its immunity to copyright and trademark suits under the Eleventh Amendment by voluntarily participating in the federal intellectual property system?
-
Thomas v. United States, Nos. 94-6648, 94-6649 (6th Cir. n.d.)
- Issue:
-
Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, No. 85-3435 (6th Cir. n.d.)
- Issue:
-
ProCD v. Zeidenberg, No. 96-1139 (7th Cir. June 20, 1996)
- Decision: Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable).
-
Duffy v. Landberg, No. 97-1560 (8th Cir. n.d.)
- Issue: Does the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cover collection of dishonored checks? See also Charles v. Check Rite Ltd., Inc., No. 96-15995 (9th Cir. n.d.), below and Snow v. Jesse L. Riddle, P.C., No. 97-4045 (10th Cir. n.d.), below (same issue).
-
Oasis Publishing Co. v. West Publishing Co., No. 96-2887 (8th Cir. n.d.)
- Appellant’s Brief • Appellee’s Brief • Oral Argument
- Issue: Does “star pagination” to a compilation of reported cases, without more, copy the arrangement of that compilation or otherwise infringe any copyright interest in that arrangement? See also Hyperlaw, Inc. v. West Publishing Co., No. 97-7910 (2nd Cir. n.d.), above.
-
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts, No. 97-56499 (9th Cir. n.d.)
- Issue:
-
Bernstein v. Department of Commerce, No. 97-16686 (9th Cir. n.d.)
- Appellant’s Brief • Appellee’s Brief • Oral Argument • Additional Briefs (Below) and Case Documents
- Issue: Do the Export Administration Regulations, 15 C.F.R. pts. 730–774, which control export of a variety of items, including computer source code that can be used to encrypt data, unconstitutionally infringe First Amendment rights, or violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or abridge the privileges and immunities of United States citizens guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, or violate the penumbral right of privacy guaranteed under the Constitution?
-
Charles v. Check Rite Ltd., Inc., No. 96-15995 (9th Cir. n.d.)
- Issue: See Duffy v. Landberg, No. 97-1560 (8th Cir. n.d.), above.
-
Santamaria v. Horsley, No. 95-16991 (9th Cir. n.d.)
- Issue:
-
Snow v. Jesse L. Riddle, P.C., No. 97-4045 (10th Cir. n.d.)
- Issue: See Duffy v. Landberg, No. 97-1560 (8th Cir. n.d.), above.
-
United States v. Nafkha, No. 96-6298 (10th Cir. n.d.)
- Issue:
-
Cuban American Bar Association v. Christopher, No. 94-5138 (11th Cir. n.d.)
- Issue:
-
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, No. 97-1246 (Fed. Cir. n.d.)
- Issue: Did Congress properly abrogate States’ immunity to patent suits under the Eleventh Amendment by a valid exercise of its Fourteenth Amendment powers?
-
In re Zurko, No. 96-1258 (Fed. Cir. n.d.)
- Issue: What is the standard of review applicable to United States Patent and Trademark Office fact-finding?
-
State v. American Civil Liberties Union, No. 1960927 (Ala. n.d.)
- Issue:
California decisions are available in Adobe Acrobat files or MS Word/WIN 6.0 (.DOC) files.
-
People v. Gainey, No. S064917 (Cal. n.d.)
- Issue: Can a defendant charged as an habitual criminal attack the validity of his prior conviction, claiming that he was not properly advised of his rights before pleading guilty in the prior proceedings?
-
Alvarado v. Superior Court, No. S059827 (Cal. n.d.)
- Issue: Is a defendant’s right to confrontation violated by an order protecting the identity of witnesses in an organized crime case?
-
People v. Whitson, No. S057262 (Cal. Jan. 15, 1998)
MS Word file: S057262.DOC
- Decision: In the defendant’s trial for vehicular second-degree murder of another driver and the defendant’s passenger, in a collision after his car ran through a red light and crashed into the other car at 75 miles an hour, the defendant’s pretrial statements to police officers were admissible because they had not been obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), when the questioning officer reasonably believed the suspect was competent to waive his rights.
-
People v. Peevy, No. S056734 (Cal. May 7, 1998)
MS Word file: S056734.DOC
- Decision: Statements obtained through intentional violations of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), can be introduced at trial for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s testimony.
-
In re Robbins, No. S048929 (Cal. Aug. 3, 1998)
MS Word file: S048929.DOC
- Decision: Petition for habeas corpus relief is denied. Under the applicable policies and case law governing the filing of habeas corpus petitions in capital cases in a California court, whenever a habeas corpus petition is filed more than 90 days after the filing of the reply brief in the direct appeal, the petitioner has the burden of establishing the timeliness of the claims raised in the petition. “We issued an order to show cause in [this case] to analyze the timeliness issue and to explain, in the context of specific claims, how the timeliness rules are applied by our court.”
-
People v. Venegas, No. S044870 (Cal. May 11, 1998)
MS Word file: S044870.DOC
- Decision: Admission of DNA evidence was prejudicial error because, in performing the DNA analysis, the FBI failed to comply with procedures recommended in 1992 by the National Research Council for determining the statistical probability of a random match. However, the prosecution’s failure to prove general scientific acceptance of the methodology used by the FBI in performing the DNA analysis was not prejudicial error.
-
In re Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General on Laws Related to Discrimination, No. 82,674, 632 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1994)
- Issue:
-
United States v. Riggs, No. 90-9108 (N.D. Ga. n.d.)
- Issue: