EQUITY

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether Florida is entitled to an apportionment of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin against Georgia. Plaintiff Florida argues that Georgia’s use of the water is unreasonable because of mismanagement and waste and that Georgia’s use harms Florida’s oyster fisheries. Florida argues that it is entitled to relief because even an extra 1,000 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) of water will greatly benefit Florida, whereas the cost to Georgia is low and can be mitigated by water conservation methods. Defendant Georgia argues that Georgia’s use is reasonable because Florida’s models for consumption are incorrect and that the water is used for important purposes such as irrigation. Georgia also argues that a cap on its consumption would yield little benefit to Florida because of how the United States Army Corps of Engineers operates its dams and reservoirs and would be extremely costly for Georgia to implement. The outcome of this case will have implications for the sharing of water resources by neighboring states, state economies, and the environment. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a bankruptcy debtor who fails to disclose a civil claim during bankruptcy proceedings can later pursue that claim in federal court. The case also asks whether courts can prohibit undisclosed claims when a bankruptcy trustee, instead of the debtor, seeks to continue the lawsuit. Keathley argues that the Fifth Circuit’s rigid judicial estoppel test is inconsistent with equitable principles and suggests a flexible, totality of the circumstances approach that allows debtors to correct mistakes without forfeiting valuable claims. On the other hand, Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. contends that an objective judicial estoppel rule best aligns with bankruptcy’s goal of protecting creditors while conditioning a debtor’s fresh start on full disclosure of known assets. The Court’s decision has sweeping implications for debtors and creditors and fairness in bankruptcy proceedings.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied the Court’s decision in Holland v. Florida when the D.C. Circuit ruled that the statute of limitations was not subject to equitable tolling for the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin’s (“the Tribe”) 1996–1998 claims for contract support costs. See Brief for Respondent at i. The Tribe argues that despite the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of the Holland standard for equitable tolling as rigid and mechanical, the Holland standard should instead conform to the Federal Circuit standard, which is a comprehensive and unified analysis that also follows the proper interpretation of Holland. See Brief for Petitioner at 5–6. In contrast, the United States argues that the elements within a comprehensive analysis do not provide an independent basis for equitable  tolling,  and that equitable tolling should not excuse the Tribe’s miscalculations and legal misunderstandings. See Brief for Respondent at 21–22, 48.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied the Court’s decision in Holland v. Florida when the D.C. Circuit ruled that the statute of limitations was not subject to equitable tolling for the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin’s (“the Tribe”) 1996–1998 claims for contract support costs. See Brief for Respondent at i. The Tribe argues that despite the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of the Holland standard for equitable tolling as rigid and mechanical, the Holland standard should instead conform to the Federal Circuit standard, which is a comprehensive and unified analysis that also follows the proper interpretation of Holland. See Brief for Petitioner at 5–6. In contrast, the United States argues that the elements within a comprehensive analysis do not provide an independent basis for equitable  tolling,  and that equitable tolling should not excuse the Tribe’s miscalculations and legal misunderstandings. See Brief for Respondent at 21–22, 48.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources