Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
14-7244Shao v. Wang(1) Whether the child should have rights of liberty, including not to be forced to be separated from his/her mother, to live in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by implementing the international standards of the child’s rights accorded by the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1990 and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1959; (2) whether Section 3042 of California’s Family Code should be declared to be void for violating the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in discriminating against the child’s rights for the child in the ages of four to thirteen by requiring the Court to consider the child’s wish only for the children of age fourteen or over, which is in conflict with Sections 366.26(g) and 317(e)(2) of California’s Welfare and Institutions Code which mandates a court to consider a child’s wishes from age four; (3) whether a second or even third right to appeal should be created when an appellant was not afforded an opportunity to pursue her first right of appeal in the state’s appellate courts, in consideration of the facts that (a) the policy of Section 68081 of the California Government Code mandates rehearing when a litigant was not given notice to a dispositive case; (b) The Republic of China in Taiwan has two rights of appeal to its highest court, the Supreme Court, created more than 80 years’ ago; and (c) cries of appellants nationwide for injustice because of only one right of appeal; (4) whether there is a compelling reason to review de novo when petitioner has not been afforded the opportunity to pursue her first right to appeal as the California Court of Appeals broke the laws for appeals by (a) denying calendar preference and delaying review by 19 months; (b) denying petitioner’s right of statutory oral argument in Rule 8.256(c)(2) of the California Rules of Court, Art. VI, Clause 3 of the California Constitution, and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (c) failing to determine crucial causes in the opinion as mandated by Article VI, Section 14 of the California Constitution and in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (d) issuing a surprising dismissal of appeal based on an unbriefed case and further denying petitioner rehearing mandated by Section 68081 of the California Government Code; (5) whether “good cause” as a ground for removing a child’s attorney under California Court Rule 5.240(f)(2) is void for vagueness and unenforceable; what the standards are for removing a child’s attorney; whether a child’s attorney should be removed for failure to represent the child’s wishes; and whether, by having a right to express their wishes in litigation that concerns them as prescribed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child has a right to select and remove his/her attorney who obstructs his/her wishes; (6) whether the state court severely violates appellant’s human rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment by re-issuing parental deprival orders without notice, motion, or evidentiary hearing, after the same were set aside; and (7) whether the federal remedy of habeas corpus in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be expanded in interpretation and application to include parental deprival. (Opinion by )
14-531Wetzel v. CoxWhether this Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan provides a basis to allow a federal habeas petitioner to reopen the judgment, years after finality, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Opinion by )
14-555Nelson v. WisconsinWhether a trial court's complete denial of a criminal defendant's constitutional right to testify is amenable to harmless-error analysis. (Opinion by )
14-623CPV Maryland, LLC v. PPL EnergyPlus, LLC(1) Whether, where, as a result of a state-directed procurement, the contract price to build and operate a power plant is the developer’s bid price, and may result in payments beyond what the developer earns selling the plant’s capacity in the auction supervised by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the program is “field preempted” as a state’s attempt to set interstate wholesale rates; and (2) whether a state-directed contract to support construction of a power plant is “conflict preempted” because its long-term pricing structure provides incentives different from the incentives provided by prices generated in the FERC-supervised yearly capacity auction. (Opinion by )
14-708Truvia v. Connick(1) Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in refusing to find a triable issue as to whether there is a “policy” or “custom” when there was significant evidence of Brady v. Maryland violations by the Orleans Parish District Attorney in this and many other cases; and (2) whether proving municipal policy or custom requires proving similar unconstitutional acts that occurred before the events giving rise to the lawsuit or whether proof of a policy or custom can be based, in part, on similar unconstitutional acts that occurred following the events involving these plaintiffs. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot