U.S. Supreme Court Hears Argument: Week of November 5
Monday, November 5
- CSX v. Ga. State Bd. Of Equalization (railroad tax valuation)
- Dept. of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis (bond taxation disparity between home state and other states)
Tuesday, November 6
- John R. Sand & Gravel v. U.S. (whether Tucker Act's statute of limitations is jurisdictional)
- Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki (what constitutes an EEOC "charge")
Wednesday, November 7
- Hall Street Assoc. v. Mattel (scope of court review under Federal Arbitration Act)
Questions presented are below the fold.
CSX v. Ga. State Bd. Of Equalization
Whether, under the federal statute prohibiting state tax discrimination against railroads, 49 U.S.C. § 11501(b)(1), a federal district court determining the “true market value” of railroad property must accept the valuation method chosen by the State.
Dept. of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis
Whether a state violates the dormant Commerce Clause by providing an exemption from its income tax for interest income derived from bonds issued by the state and its political subdivisions, while treating interest income realized from bonds issued by other states and their political subdivisions as taxable to the same extent, and in the same manner, as interest earned on bonds issued by commercial entities, whether domestic or foreign.
John R. Sand & Gravel v. U.S.
The statute of limitations in the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §2501, provides: “Every claim of which the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within six years after such claim first accrues.” The questions presented are:
1. Whether the statute of limitations in the Tucker Act limits the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.
2. Whether a claim for a permanent physical taking of a portion of real property first accrues upon the government’s temporary exclusion of the property holder from another portion of the property.
Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki
Whether the Second Circuit erred in concluding, contrary to the law of several other circuits and implicating an issue this Court has examined but not yet decided, that an "intake questionnaire" submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") may suffice for the charge of discrimination that must be submitted pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ("ADEA"), even in the absence of evidence that the EEOC treated the form as a charge or the employee submitting the questionnaire reasonably believed it constituted a charge.
Hall Street Assoc. v. Mattel
Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals err when it held, in conflict with several other federal Courts of Appeals, that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) precludes a federal court from enforcing the parties’ clearly expressed agreement providing for more expansive judicial review of an arbitration award than the narrow standard of review otherwise provided for in the FAA?