Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
13-1505Freidus v. ING Groep N.V.Whether, for purposes of a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, a plaintiff must plead that a statement of opinion not only contains false statements of material facts or omits material facts required to make the statements in the registration statement not misleading, but also that the speaker actually knew that the statements were false or misleading, even though the Court has held, in Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, that under § 11 “the issuer of the securities is held absolutely liable,” without regard to fault. (Opinion by )
13-1424Louisiana ex rel. Ballay v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.Whether, in enacting the Clean Water Act, Congress intended to strip the states of the ability to punish harm to their wildlife resulting from oil spills. (Opinion by )
14-5442Chism v. CaliforniaWhether, when the California Supreme Court conducts comparative review on appeal from the denial of a motion brought pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, its practice of seeking out reasons other than those stated by the prosecutor as a basis for affirming the trial court's ruling contravenes this Court's holdings in Miller-El v. Dretke, and other decisions. (Opinion by )
14-168Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan v. Hi-Lex Controls, Inc.(1) Whether, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), a service provider that contracts with an employer to provide services to an ERISA plan exercises “control” over “plan assets” when the service provider (a) contracts with the employer for compensation for services provided to the plan, and (b) elects to exercise its contractual right to receive that compensation, rather than waiving that right; and (2) whether under the plain language of section 408 of ERISA, a provider of services to an ERISA plan can be held to have violated section 406 of ERISA, which states that a fiduciary to an ERISA plan may not “deal with the assets of the plan in his own interest or for his own account,” when it has received only “reasonable compensation” for its services. (Opinion by )
13-8827Volkman v. United StatesWhether refusal of jury instructions including language indicating that, in order to obtain a conviction for prescribing medication for no legitimate medical purpose and outside of the course of professional responsibility, a jury must find that the prescribing physician used his prescription writing powers as a means to engage in illicit drug dealing and trafficking as conventionally understood, was error given this Court's precedent indicating that in order to obtain a conviction under the Controlled Substances Act, the government must show that a physician conducted himself in a manner consistent with a large-scale drug pusher. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot