Petition this week

This week, we will focus on the petition for the Supreme Court to consider, including: whether the punitive damages that doubles the damages can be consistent with due process, and how the defendant can prove that the lawyer’s invalid assistance in rejecting the plea offer.

After a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Epic Systems won $140 million in damages in a trade secret dispute with Tata Consulting Services. The jury also awarded Epic 700 million US dollars in punitive damages. According to Wisconsin law, the amount of punitive damages is limited to twice the amount of damages, and the district court limited Epic’s compensation to $280 million. In the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a one-to-one award for damages violated due process because the amount of compensatory damages was already large, and the underlying claim only involved economic losses. In its petition, Epic argued that the $280 million in damages was commensurate with due process because Wisconsin regulations clearly informed the defendant about the possible amount of punitive damages.The situation is Epic Systems Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.

Anaya v Lempkin The defendant claimed to have rejected the plea bargain based on the lawyer’s wrong suggestion and therefore had to bear the burden of proof. David Anaya was indicted in Texas for murder and aggravated assault with lethal weapons, for which he demanded self-defense. Anaaya’s defense attorney informed him that according to Texas law, he did not get out of the predicament for his self-defense proposition, and “doesn’t matter or make a difference,” and therefore rejected the guilty plea offer. However, his lawyer is incorrect, because Anaya’s status as a felon with weapons means that his failure to retreat is relevant. In the trial, the government looked at Anaya’s failure to get out of the situation even though he was still in the car when he shot the victim. The sentence he received was similar to life imprisonment. Anaya’s petition in the Supreme Court involved his claim that he had received invalid assistance from a lawyer when he rejected the plea offer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit acknowledged that Anaya’s performance was poor, but ruled against Anaya because the government may withdraw the plea offer. Anaya argued in his petition that the Fifth Circuit’s decision conflicted with the Supreme Court’s case on invalidation of aid, resulting in the denial of the guilty plea deal.

Last week, the Supreme Court Award certificate In a major Second Amendment challenge to the New York law, the law requires anyone who wants to carry a gun in the state to show a good reason for doing so (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett).in Russell v. New Jersey, Reb Russell questioned a similar law in New Jersey. The judge can simply put the case on hold until New York makes a verdict.

These and others Petition of the week as follows:

Russell v. New Jersey
20-1419
problem: (1) Does the “Second Amendment” protect the right to carry weapons out of their homes for self-defense purposes; (2) Whether the government can deny citizens who abide by the law to exercise their pistols by showing their right to exercise their rights as needed The right to take out of the house.

Epic Systems Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
20-1426
problem: State regulations clearly limit the upper limit of punitive damages to twice the compensatory damages. Whether it meets the notification requirements of the due process clause, so that punitive damages in compliance with the regulations are constitutionally reasonable under the due process clause.

Anaya v Lempkin
20-1440
problem: Does the Supreme Court’s ruling clearly show that the defendant can prove that he was prejudiced by the lawyer’s negligent performance, which led to the defendant’s rejection of the defense offer, and the defendant did not contradict the fact that the record did not show any specific facts or interventions, This indicates that the state will withdraw the request, or the trial court will reject the request.

U.S. v. Taylor
20-1459
problem: Whatever 18 USC§924(c)(3)(A)The definition of “violent crime” does not include the attempted robbery under the Hobbes Act 18 USC§1951(a).

Eni U.S. Natural Gas Marketing Co., Ltd. v. Gulf LNG Energy Co., Ltd.
20-1462
problem: Whether Federal Arbitration Law When a party’s claim to seek arbitration represents a “collateral attack” on a previous arbitration award, the court is allowed to refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement that entrusts all issues (including arbitrability issues) to the arbitrator.