Warger v. Shauers

Issues

May a party moving for a new trial use testimony about juror deliberations to show juror dishonesty during voir dire? 

Upon the return of an unanimous verdict in favor of the defendant in a vehicular accident resulting in personal injury, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, alleging juror misconduct as a basis for a new trial. That motion relied on a juror’s testimony about statements made during the jury’s deliberation by the foreperson that suggested she had withheld information during the jury selection process. Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) (“FRE  606(b)”) allows the introduction of juror testimony only in very limited circumstances, and this case should determine whether the testimony offered here does or does not fall within one of those exceptions.  This case has greater implications for the sanctity of jury deliberations, as well as the balance between the right of civil litigants to a fair trial and the importance of finality in verdicts.  This decision should also clarify for lower federal courts the application of FRE 606(b). 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) permits a party moving for a new trial based on juror dishonesty during voir dire to introduce juror testimony about statements made during deliberations that tend to show the alleged dishonesty.

On August 4, 2006, Respondent Randy Shauers (Respondent’s) pick-up truck collided with the Petitioner Gregory Warger (Petitioner’s) motorcycle. See Brief for Petitioner at 4. Petitioner Warger required surgical amputation of his leg following the collision.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Stephen A. Miller:, Preview of the Supreme Court’s October Term in 2014, The Legal Intelligencer, (September 4, 2014). 

Submit for publication
0

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens

Issues

Is a defendant seeking removal from state to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act required to present evidence supporting jurisdiction in the notice of removal?

In 2012, Brandon W. Owens filed a class action petition in Kansas state court, alleging that Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company and Cherokee Basin Pipeline owed royalty payments derived from certain gas wells. Dart and Cherokee sought to remove the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), commonly known as the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). In their notice of removal, Dart and Cherokee did not include supporting evidence of its allegation that the jurisdictional amount was met. Dart and Cherokee contend that mere allegations of the amount in controversy is sufficient to establish jurisdiction if there is no dispute over that amount. In opposition, Owens argues that the notice of removal has to contain factual evidence supporting federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court will decide how much evidence of the jurisdictional requirements—if any—a CAFA defendant seeking removal is required to include in his or her notice of removal. The resolution of this case will have a significant impact on a defendant’s burden in seeking removal and, in turn, large effects on the availability of a federal forum for many state court defendants.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

A defendant seeking removal of a case to federal court must file a notice of removal containing "a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal" and attach only the state court filings served on such defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Consistent with that statutory pleading requirement, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits require only that a notice of removal contain allegations of the jurisdictional facts supporting removal; those courts do not require the defendant to attach evidence supporting federal jurisdiction to the notice of removal. District courts in those Circuits may consider evidence supporting removal even if it comes later in response to a motion to remand.

Here, in a clean break from Section 1446(a)'s language and its sister Circuits' decisions, the Tenth Circuit let stand an order remanding a class action to state court based upon the district court's refusal to consider evidence establishing federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because that evidence was not attached to the notice of removal. (That evidence, which was not disputed, came later in response to the motion to remand.)

The question presented is:

Whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is alleging the required "short and plain statement of the grounds for removal" enough?

In 2012, Respondent Brandon W. Owens filed a class action petition in Kansas state court against Petitioners Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC and Cherokee Basin Pipeline, LLC (“Dart and Cherokee”).

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Holt v. Hobbs

Issues

Does a prison’s grooming policy, which prohibits all beards except for quarter-inch beards for certain medical reasons, violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by prohibiting an inmate from growing a half-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs?

In 2000, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) with the intent to provide protection for the free exercise of religion in various contexts, including prisons and jails. In this case, the Supreme Court will consider whether a prison grooming policy prohibiting a half-inch beard grown in accordance with a prisoner’s religious beliefs, violates RLUIPA. Additionally, the Court will have the opportunity to determine the level of deference courts should give prison officials when considering whether a prison policy that substantially burdens inmates’ exercise of religion furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means available. The resolution of this case may impact the balance between the rights of prisoners to practice their religion freely while incarcerated and the government’s interest in prison safety. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. Whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ no beard grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
  2. Whether a ½ inch beard would satisfy the security goals sought by the policy.
  3. Whether the no beard grooming policy violates Petitioner’s First Amendment right to practice Islam as he believes it is supposed to be practiced by the wearing of the beard.
  4. That the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has decided that the no beard grooming policy does not violate the RLUIPA, but this Court should decide the matter since it has not done so and should rule whether grooming policies of any Department of Correction that do not allow for a religious exception exemption are constitutional.
  5. That the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s decision in this case conflicts with other circuit’s rulings on the matter.
  6. That the ADC grooming policy of no beards is not the least restrictive means of achieving the desired objective of staunching the flow of contraband and identifying prisoners in the event of an escape.

In 2000, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) to provide protection for the free exercise of religion in several contexts, including incarceration. See 42 U.S.C.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to