The Appellate Corner, 1114 ALBJ, 75 The Alabama Lawyer 398 (2014)
| Author | Wilson F. Green, Marc A. Starrett, Judges. |
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0By Wilson F. Green
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Wilson F. Green is a partner in Fleenor & Green LLP in Tuscaloosa. He is a summa cum laude graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law and a former law clerk to the Hon. Robert B. Propst, United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. From 2000-09, Green served as adjunct professor at the law school, where he taught courses in class actions and complex litigation. He represents consumers and businesses in consumer and commercial litigation.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0By Marc A. Starrett
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Marc A. Starrett is an assistant attorney general for the State of Alabama and represents the state in criminal appeals and habeas corpus in all state and federal courts. He is a graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law. Starrett served as staff attorney to justice Kenneth Ingram and justice Mark Kennedy on the Alabama Supreme Court, and was engaged in civil and criminal practice in Montgomery before appointment to the Office of the Attorney General. Among other cases for the office, Starrett successfully prosecuted Bobby Frank Cherry on appeal from his murder convictions for the 1963 bombing of Birmingham's Sixteenth Street Baptist Church.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0This installment also contains our annual preview of cases to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court beginning in October. The Supreme Court's "Long Conference" will take place in late September, where the Court will consider several months of piled-up certiorari petitions-from which will likely issue a cache of new grants.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Selected Upcoming Cases in the October 2014 United States Supreme Court Term
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama (13-895) and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama (13-1138): Whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (13-553): (1) Whether a state "discriminates against a rail carrier" in violation of 49 U.S.C. §11501(b)(4) when the state generally requires commercial and industrial businesses, including rail carriers, to pay a sales-and-use tax but grants exemptions from the tax to the railroads' competitors and (2) Whether, in resolving a claim of unlawful tax discrimination under 49 U.S.C. §11501(b)(4), a court should consider other aspects of the state's tax scheme rather than focusing solely on the challenged tax provision
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Elonis v. United States (13-983): Consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, does conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) require proof of subjective intent to threaten, or it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening?
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne (No. 13-485): Does the dormant Commerce Clause prohibit a state from taxing all the income of its residents-wherever earned-by mandating a credit for taxes paid on income earned in other states?
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif (13-935): (1) Whether the bankruptcy court has constitutional authority to enter final judgment on a claim that certain property in the debtor's possession belongs to the bankruptcy estate stems from the bankruptcy itself, when resolution of that claim turns on state property law; (2) whether a bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment on a claim that Article III would otherwise preclude it from adjudicating based on implied consent.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Perez & Nichols v. Mortgage Bankers Association (13-1041 and 13-1052): Whether a federal agency must engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking before it can significantly alter an interpretive rule that articulates an interpretation of an agency regulation.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund (13-435): May a plaintiff alleging a violation of section 11 of the 1933 Act plead that a statement of opinion was "untrue" merely by alleging that the opinion itself was objectively wrong, or must the plaintiff also allege that the statement was subjectively false-requiring allegations that the speaker's actual opinion was different from the one expressed?
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (13-684): Does the three-year time for exercising rescission under section 1635 of the Truth-in-Lending Act run from consummation of the transaction, or must a borrower file a lawsuit within the three years?
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk (No. 13-433): Whether time spent in security screenings is compensable under the FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Young v. United Parcel Service (No. 12-1226): Whether: and in what circumstances, an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations must also provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are "similar in their ability or inability to work"
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Mach Mining v. EEOC (No. 13-1019): Whether and how may a court enforce the EEOC's mandatory duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit?
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Warger v. Shauers (No. 13-517) 721 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2013): Whether FRE 606(b) permits a party moving for new trial based on juror dishonesty during voir dire to introduce juror testimony about statements made during deliberations that tend to show the dishonesty
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0United States v. Wong (No. 13-1074): Whether the six-month time bar for filing suit in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act is subject to equitable tolling
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0United States v. June (No. 13-1075): Whether the two-year time limit for filing an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act is subject to equitable tolling
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi...
To continue reading
Request your trial