Tuesday, January 18, 2011

SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Smith v. Bayer; Stern v. Marshall

We covered earlier the Supreme Court’s grants of certiorari in Smith v. Bayer Corp. and Stern v. Marshall. The Court hears oral argument in both cases today. Check back for links to the oral argument transcripts once they’re available.

Smith v. Bayer Corp. (09-1205) presents the questions:

(1) Whether, under the re-litigation exception of the Anti-Injunction Act, a district court can enjoin parties from seeking class certification in state court under state procedural rules when the district court had previously denied certification of a similar class under federal procedural rules but neither the parties sought to be estopped nor the issues to be presented in state court are identical as those presented to the district court.

(2) Whether a district court that previously denied class certification nonetheless has personal jurisdiction over the absent putative class members such that it may enjoin them from seeking class certification in state court.

Stern v. Marshall (No. 10-179) presents the questions:

(1) Whether the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C) contravenes congressional intent;

(2) Whether Congress may authorize core jurisdiction over debtors’ compulsory counterclaims to proofs of claim;

(3) Whether the Ninth Circuit contravened Supreme Court precedent and created a circuit split by holding that Congress cannot constitutionally authorize non-Article III bankruptcy judges to enter final judgment on all compulsory counterclaims to proofs of claim.

Here are links to SCOTUSblog’s casefiles, where you can find the briefs in these cases:

Smith v. Bayer Corp.
Stern v. Marshall

Parenthetically, Stern v. Marshall concerns ongoing litigation (which has already generated one SCOTUS decision: Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006)) over the estate of J. Howard Marshall, Jr., the late husband of the late model, actress, and reality TV star Vickie Lynn Marshall (perhaps better known to our readers as Anna Nicole Smith). Anna Nicole Smith's estate is the petitioner in the case being argued today.



Class Actions, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink


Post a comment