Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case Tracker
The Court, in plain English
Find a case
Topics
Home
/
Calendar
/
November 2010
Argument sitting
November 2010 oral arguments
←
October 2010
Full calendar
December 2010
→
5 cases across 5 argument days
·
Arguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
25
26
29
30
Argument day
More than one case
Five argument days, November 1 to November 29, 2010.
Each has one case.
1
Monday, November 1, 2010
1 case
Overlapping government lawsuits
United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation
A federal statute provides that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear a suit against the federal government raising a claim that is already being litigated against the government in another court. Does this provision apply when the plaintiff brings a lawsuit in both the Court of Federal Claims and another court based on the same set of facts, but seeks different forms of relief in the two cases?
Decided
Apr 26, 2011
09-846
3
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
1 case
School tax credit challenges
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Kathleen M. Winn
Do the plaintiffs lack standing because they cannot allege that the Arizona tuition tax credit involves the appropriation or expenditure of state funds?
Decided
Apr 4, 2011
09-987
9
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
1 case
New facts in federal review
Vincent Cullen, Acting Warden v. Scott Lynn Pinholster
Can a federal court overturn a state criminal conviction on the basis of facts the defendant could have alleged, but did not, in state court?
Decided
Apr 4, 2011
09-1088
10
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
1 case
Taxes on railroad fuel
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue
Can the CSX Transportation railroad company challenge an Alabama state tax of its purchase of diesel fuel?
Decided
Feb 22, 2011
09-520
29
Monday, November 29, 2010
1 case
Deadlines to challenge convictions
James Walker, Warden v. Charles W. Martin
In a federal habeas corpus proceeding, is a state law barring a prisoner from attacking his conviction an insufficient procedural bar because the federal court thinks the rule is (1) vague and (2) the state failed to prove that the bar is consistently applied?
Decided
Feb 23, 2011
09-996