Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

In previous years, the Court released orders the morning after the Court’s “Long Conference.” It has not done so this year. Beginning last Term, the Court consistently considered petitions at least two times before granting certiorari. To the extent that practice continues -- and there is no affirmative evidence the Court intends to drop it -- we would not expect orders granting certiorari today.

AvidAir Helicopter Supply, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce Corp.

Petition for certiorari denied on October 1, 2012
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
11-1366 8th Cir. N/A N/A N/A N/A OT 2012

Issue: (1) Whether maintenance related Federal Aviation Regulations (F.A.R.s) and/or orders promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), including 14 C.F.R. § 21.50, 14 C.F.R. § 33.4 and FAA Order 8110.54 must be considered and enforced in a federal district court and/or a United States Circuit Court of Appeals in providing the appropriate standard of care for state law remedies involving claims of misappropriation of aviation overhaul/repair and maintenance information alleged to be trade secrets; (2) whether an FAA authorized aviation maintenance provider can be, in effect, required to violate the law (F.A.R.s) through not being allowed to possess current manufacturer maintenance instructions; (3) whether a United States Circuit Court of Appeals can selectively enforce only certain F.A.R.s on its own volition and ignore other relevant F.A.R.s; (4) whether a United States Circuit Court of Appeals can create a definition of “value” of an alleged aviation related trade secret that is contrary to a controlling decision of the United States Supreme Court; and (5) whether a United States Circuit Court of Appeals can ignore summary judgment evidence and decisions of its Circuit and of the United States Supreme Court, which deal directly with loss of trade secret protection.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Briefs and Documents

Certiorari-stage documents

 
Share:
Term Snapshot
Awards