Greetings Court fans!
An order list today, but first, a quick follow-up on a “GVR” from last week’s order list.
Often, when the Court grants a cert petition to review a particular question, there are other petitions pending that raise similar or identical questions. In those circumstances, if there is some possibility that the Court’s decision will impact another petition, they “hold” the related case until they issue their final decision in the granted case. After they issue their decision, they “GVR” — grant, vacate, and remand — the related petition. This allows the lower court to reconsider its decision in light of the new Supreme Court decision. (A GVR is not automatic, though. They can always deny the related petition if they believe that their new decision will have no impact on the lower court.) With this background, I turn to last week’s order list: The State Farm v. Campbell punitive damages decision from April 7 generated 5 GVRs (a relatively high number for one decision), including one of interest to readers on this list: Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Edwards (02-342). In this case, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld a $22 million punitive damages award in favor of a physician who claimed that a pharmaceutical company had failed to provide adequate information about the potential toxicity of one of its drugs. The pharmaceutical company petitioned for cert, supported by an amicus brief from the Product Liability Advisory Council among others, and last week, the Court GVR’d to allow the Oregon court to reconsider its decision in light of State Farm. Kudos to all involved.
Now, on to today’s list. Three items of note:
1. The Court granted cert in Kontrick v. Ryan (02-819). This is a bankruptcy case that asks whether bankruptcy rules that establish deadlines for objecting to a debtor’s discharge are jurisdictional.
2. The Court asked the SG to weigh in on Charter Communications, Inc. v. Santa Cruz County (02-1267). This is a telecommunications case with the following questions: (1) Are local government’s actions in refusing to consent to change of control of cable franchisee entitled to substantial deference? (2) Does cable operator waive its right to challenge actions of local government on First Amendment grounds by virtue of having entered into franchise agreement with local government? (3) Do local government’s actions in refusing to consent to change of control of cable franchisee constitute “legislative acts” subject to substantial deference, when local government acts pursuant to its contractual obligations under franchise agreement?
3. The Court set Virginia v. Maryland for argument. This is a slightly unusual case because it is an original action in the Supreme Court involving a dispute between Virginia and Maryland over water rights in the Potomac River. Although it’s an original action, the Court doesn’t really like to act as a trial court (i.e., take evidence, decide facts in the first instance), so they appointed a special master to decide the factual issues. (He ruled in favor of Virginia.) The argument will be about exceptions to the special master’s report. Not to suggest that it matters, but a little bit of trivia: I know of only one Justice who lives in Maryland (O’Connor), and according to lore, she’s the first Justice to live in Maryland since the infamous Roger Taney, of Dred Scott fame. (I haven’t verified that fact, but thought I’d throw it in.) I’m not sure what that says about Maryland; it seems like a nice enough state. At least three Justices live in Virginia, and I think four live in the District. (I’m not entirely sure about Stevens, and can’t remember anything about Kennedy.)