Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case Tracker
The Court, in plain English
Find a case
Topics
Home
/
Calendar
/
April 2014
Argument sitting
April 2014 oral arguments
←
March 2014
Full calendar
October 2014
→
10 cases across 6 argument days
·
Arguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
28
29
30
Argument day
More than one case
Six argument days, April 2 to April 30, 2014.
Four of them have more than one case.
2
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
1 case
Company stock in retirement plans
Fifth Third Bancorp v. John Dudenhoeffer
Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit err by holding that the respondents were not required to plausibly allege that Fifth Third abused its discretion by remaining invested in the employer stock in order to overcome the presumption that the decision to invest in the stock was reasonable?
Decided
Jun 25, 2014
12-751
21
Monday, April 21, 2014
2 cases
False advertising on food labels
POM Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Company
Did the U.S. Court of Appeals err when it held that FDA regulations barred Pom Wonderful's claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act?
Decided
Jun 12, 2014
12-761
Subpoenas for foreign assets
Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.
Does a subpoena that requires a bank to disclose information about all assets of a foreign state, without respect to their location or use, violate the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?
Decided
Jun 16, 2014
12-842
22
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
2 cases
Laws against false political speech
Susan B. Anthony List v. Steven Driehaus
1. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit err in holding that the advertising company's rejection of the proposed billboard and the Commission's actions against SBA List do not demonstrate an imminent threat of future prosecution sufficient to establish ripeness under Article III? 2. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit err in holding that state laws prohibiting false political speech are not subject to pre-enforcement First Amendment review as long as the speaker maintains that the statements are factually true?
Decided
Jun 16, 2014
13-193
Copyright for TV streaming
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., fka Bamboom Labs, Inc.
Does a company "publicly perform" a copyrighted television program when it transmits the program to paid subscribers over the Internet?
Decided
Jun 25, 2014
13-461
23
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
2 cases
Hearings on IRS summonses
United States v. Michael Clarke
Does an allegation that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a summons for an improper purpose entitle an opponent of the summons to a hearing to question IRS officials about their reasons for issuing the summons before the court allows the summonses to be enforced?
Decided
Jun 19, 2014
13-301
Pollution lawsuit deadlines
CTS Corporation v. Peter Waldburger
Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit correctly interpret CERCLA to apply to statutes of repose as well as to statutes of limitations?
Decided
Jun 9, 2014
13-339
28
Monday, April 28, 2014
2 cases
Clear patent claims
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
1. Does the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's standard of whether a patent claim is "insolubly ambiguous" defeat the purpose of the statutory requirement for patents to be particular and distinct? 2. Does the presumption of patent validity dilute the statutory requirement for patents to be particular and distinct?
Decided
Jun 2, 2014
13-369
Public employee free speech
Edward R. Lane v. Steve Franks, in His Individual Capacity, and Susan Burrow, in Her Official Capacity as Acting President of Central Alabama Community College
1. Does the First Amendment protect a public employee's truthful, sworn testimony that was compelled by subpoena and not a part of the employee's ordinary job responsibilities? 2. Does the doctrine of qualified immunity preclude Lane from claiming that Franks terminated his employment in an act of retaliation?
Decided
Jun 19, 2014
13-483
30
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
1 case
Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Did the Federal Circuit court err in holding that a defendant may be liable for inducing patent infringement under § 271(b) even if no party committed direct infringement under §271(a)?
Decided
Jun 2, 2014
12-786