Today's first petition of the day is:

Weintraub v. Board

Docket: 10-202
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Supreme Court's holding that a public employee who engages in speech "pursuant to" his official duties cannot invoke the First Amendment protection to insulate his speech from employer discipline, applies only to speech “required” by a public employee's official duties or extends to all speech “stemming from” or “related to” those duties; and (2) whether the inquiry into whether an employee spoke “pursuant to” his official duties is purely a question of law, which a court may resolve at summary judgment, or a mixed question of fact and law properly reserved for a jury.

Certiorari stage documents:

Today’s second petition of the day is:

Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay

Docket: 10-300
Issue(s): Whether, under the doctrine of contributory trademark infringement, a defendant can be held liable for operating a marketplace that it knows is used to sell substantial quantities of goods that infringe a plaintiff's trademark, even if it does not know that particular goods are infringing.

Certiorari stage documents:

Today’s fourth petition of the day is:

Ryan v. Schad

Docket: 10-305
Issue(s): (1) Whether, by awarding a defendant an evidentiary hearing on diligence and a simultaneous hearing on the merits, despite his lack of diligence, the Ninth Circuit's opinion conflicts with Court precedent and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA); and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit's opinion conflicts with Court precedent and AEDPA, by remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing without analyzing whether a colorable ineffective assistance of counsel claim was presented or considering the claim on the merits, when the district court considered the claim in light of the new evidence the defendant presented and concluded it showed neither deficient performance nor prejudice.

Certiorari stage documents:

Akin Gump and Howe & Russell serve as counsel in the following case, which is listed without regard to its likelihood of being granted:

Castro v. United States

Note: Howe & Russell and Akin Gump represent the petitioner in this case.
Docket: 10-309
Issue(s): (1) Whether the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), applies to acts by federal employees that exceed the scope of their statutory or constitutional authority; and (2) even if governmental conduct would otherwise fit within the discretionary function, whether the law enforcement proviso of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) -- which authorizes suits based on an enumerated list of common-law torts if those torts are committed by federal law enforcement officers -- nonetheless permits a plaintiff to proceed.

Certiorari stage documents:

Posted in Weintraub v. Board, Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Ryan v. Schad, Castro v. U.S., Cases in the Pipeline