Supreme Court Case Tracker

Cases compared

Judith L. Harvey, as Trustee of the David T. & Judith L. Harvey Trust, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David T. Harvey, Deceased, Petitioner v. City of Reno, Nevada, et al. vs. Albert Glass v. Office of Chief Medical Examiner vs. Ali Mif Bey, Petitioner v. United States

Administrative Law cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.

No. 25-1254No. 25-7231No. 25-7299

Side by side

Judith L. Harvey, as Trustee of the David T. & Judith L. Harvey Trust, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David T. Harvey, Deceased, Petitioner v. City of Reno, Nevada, et al. vs. Albert Glass v. Office of Chief Medical Examiner vs. Ali Mif Bey, Petitioner v. United States, compared fact by fact
Fact	Judith L. Harvey, as Trustee of the David T. & Judith L. Harvey Trust, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David T. Harvey, Deceased, Petitioner v. City of Reno, Nevada, et al.	Albert Glass v. Office of Chief Medical Examiner	Ali Mif Bey, Petitioner v. United States
Docket	Judith L. Harvey, as Trustee of the David T. & Judith L. Harvey Trust, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David T. Harvey, Deceased, Petitioner v. City of Reno, Nevada, et al.25-1254	Albert Glass v. Office of Chief Medical Examiner25-7231	Ali Mif Bey, Petitioner v. United States25-7299
Status	Judith L. Harvey, as Trustee of the David T. & Judith L. Harvey Trust, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David T. Harvey, Deceased, Petitioner v. City of Reno, Nevada, et al.Before Arguments	Albert Glass v. Office of Chief Medical ExaminerBefore Arguments	Ali Mif Bey, Petitioner v. United StatesBefore Arguments
Date	Judith L. Harvey, as Trustee of the David T. & Judith L. Harvey Trust, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David T. Harvey, Deceased, Petitioner v. City of Reno, Nevada, et al.October Term 2025 (2025–2026)	Albert Glass v. Office of Chief Medical ExaminerOctober Term 2025 (2025–2026)	Ali Mif Bey, Petitioner v. United StatesOctober Term 2025 (2025–2026)
Question presented	Judith L. Harvey, as Trustee of the David T. & Judith L. Harvey Trust, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David T. Harvey, Deceased, Petitioner v. City of Reno, Nevada, et al.Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause requires just compensation when a state agency sells the only feasible access to private property, rendering it landlocked and valueless?	Albert Glass v. Office of Chief Medical Examiner1. Is the taking of a deceased person ’ s organs by a state agency without pre authorization of said person or next-of-kin a violation of the Constitutional and legal rights of said person and next'of kin? 2. Also, without authorization is it a violation of this person ’ s next-of-kin ’ s constitutional and legal rights to give organs to research facilities?	Ali Mif Bey, Petitioner v. United StatesWhether a court of appeals correctly applies Kisor when it finds a term "genuinely ambiguous" based on a multiplicity of dictionary definitions alone, or by invoking the regulation's purpose to introduce rather than resolve ambiguity.
Summary	Judith L. Harvey, as Trustee of the David T. & Judith L. Harvey Trust, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David T. Harvey, Deceased, Petitioner v. City of Reno, Nevada, et al.This case concerns whether Nevada government entities must pay compensation after a state agency allegedly sold the only practical access route to the Harvey Trust’s property, leaving it landlocked and without value. The petition asks the Supreme Court to review the Nevada Supreme Court’s handling of the trust’s Fifth Amendment takings claim.	Albert Glass v. Office of Chief Medical ExaminerAlbert Glass filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit case involving allegations that a state medical examiner took organs from a deceased person without permission from the person or next of kin. The case was dismissed, so the Court did not issue a ruling on those claims.	Ali Mif Bey, Petitioner v. United StatesAli Mif Bey asks the Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit ruling about when courts may defer to a federal agency’s reading of its own regulation. The petition argues that the Fourth Circuit wrongly treated regulatory language as genuinely ambiguous under Kisor v. Wilkie based only on competing dictionary definitions or by using the regulation’s purpose to create, rather than resolve, ambiguity.

Relationship

Shared issue: Administrative Law
Why compared: Reviewed Administrative Law tags connect these current-term public cases.

Related

Sources

Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.