Message from @JonJon
Discord ID: 495383923048841217
Hello ya'll!
Me and Xrindahl were going over the upcoming cases on the SC docket for October - we found some possible interesting cases
We split up the cases between us one pdf for each of us - and made a list of summaries - I love team work! 😃
Found the HOG!
1. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/republic-sudan-v-harrison/ Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred by holding – in direct conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 5th and 7th Circuits and in the face of an amicus brief from the United States – that plaintiffs suing a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act may serve the foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) by mail addressed and dispatched to the head of the foreign state's ministry of foreign affairs “via” or in “care of” the foreign state's diplomatic mission in the United States, despite U.S. obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to preserve mission inviolability. CVSG: 05/22/2018.
2. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-1275-BIO.pdf http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/virginia-uranium-inc-v-warren Issue: Issue: Whether the Atomic Energy Act pre-empts a state law that on its face regulates an activity within its jurisdiction (here, uranium mining), but has the purpose and effect of regulating the radiological safety hazards of activities entrusted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (here, the milling of uranium and the management of the resulting tailings). CVSG: 04/09/2018.
3. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/knick-v-township-scott-pennsylvania/ KNICK V Township of Scott
@Forsaken.Rhoeth nice dig, and ty for sharing!!
This was a joint effort of me and @Xrindahl
Thank y’all both
4. GUNDY V US http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gundy-v-united-states/ Issue: Issue: Whether the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation of authority to the attorney general to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 16913 violates the nondelegation doctrine.
Lmao that’s a SC issue?
Crazy
5. Stokeling v US http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/stokeling-v-united-states/ Issue: Whether a state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), when the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
You have gained a rank @Forsaken.Rhoeth, you just advanced to 14 . Thanks for all you do Patriot!
You need the URL notthe Image URL
6. Frank v Gaos
Issue: Whether, or in what circumstances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/frank-v-gaos/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-961
-found by Xrindahl
2000 limiton words
letters sorry
yeah
i did that too
Im talkingto someone else sry
wrote out a long ...long post and bam
{6 A} Facts of the case
In a group of consolidated class actions, three plaintiffs sued Google on behalf of internet users who claimed that their privacy was violated under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et. seq., and California law by the company’s disclosure of their internet search terms to third party websites. The case went to mediation, and the parties reached a settlement which they submitted to the district court for approval in July 2013.
Among the terms of the settlement were that Google would pay $5.3 million of the $8.3 million total to six cy pres recipients, provided that they agreed to dedicate the funds to promoting education and initiatives relating to internet privacy. The district court certified the class for settlement purposes, and preliminarily approved the settlement. Notice was sent out to the class in 2014, with 13 class members opting out and 5, including Thomas Frank, filing objections (“the Objectors”).
{6 B} The district court approved the parties’ settlement in 2015, and with regard to the objections, found that: (1) the cy pres award was appropriate because the award was non-distributable, (2) Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority requirement was not affected by whether the award was cy pres, (3) there was a substantial nexus between the cy pres recipients and the interests of the class members, and there was no evidence that the parties’ preexisting relationships with the recipients influenced the selection process, and (4) the amount of attorney fees was commensurate with the benefit to the class.
The Ninth Circuit approved the district court’s ruling approving the settlement, holding that the district court had not abused its discretion with regard to any of the four findings described above.
{6 C} Question of the Issue:
Does a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members support class certification and comport with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” and if so, in what circumstances?
The Demorat Titanic ship is sinking fast, but at times it seems to slow
{6 D} Definition of Cy-pres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cy-près_doctrine : The cy-près doctrine (/ˌsiːˈpreɪ/ SEE-PRAY) is a legal doctrine that first arose in courts of equity. The legal French term literally means "so near/close" and can be translated as "as near as possible" or "as near as may be".[1] The doctrine originated in the law of charitable trusts, but has been applied in the context of class action settlements in the United States.
A legal term for 'ambiguity'
7. Nielsen v Preap http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/nielsen-v-preap/ Issue: Whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately.
