Forbidden Cases

While competitors may view the actual opinions (of the case itself and any prior or subsequent judicial opinions), they may not read any briefs, news articles, oral argument transcripts, or listen to any oral arguments (e.g. from for these cases. Pursuant to Competition Rule 3(d), competitors have an affirmative duty to report any questionable cases which appear to touch squarely upon the issue presented in the question for review. Any questions regarding Forbidden Cases and associated materials must be addressed via e-mail to Professor Bill Fernholz and Competition Co-Directors Joe Rose and Jackie Setili.

Forbidden Cases (Updated Constantly)

  1. Busch v. Marple Newtown School District, 567 F.3d 89 (3d Cir. 2009).  Briefing to the Supreme Court on Busch's Petition for Writ of Certiorari is also off limits.
  2. Busch v. Marple Newtown School District, No. 05-CV-2094 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
  3. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
  4. Peck v. Baldwinsville Central School District, 426 F.3d 617 (2d Cir. 2005).
  5. Fleming v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 298 F.3d 918 (10th Cir. 2002).
  6. C.H. v. Oliva, 226 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2000).
  7. Planned Parenthood of S. Nev., Inc. v. Clark County Sch. Dist.*, 941 F.2d 817 (9th Cir. 1991).
  8. Searcey v. Harris*, 888 F.2d 1314 (11th Cir. 1989).

Reminder: Competitors may view the actual opinions, i.e. the majority, dissenting, concurring, and any other judicially-issued opinion or order, that constitute the forbidden cases. What competitors may not do, however, is read any party briefs, amicus curiae briefs, transcripts or recordings of oral arguments, news articles, and similar materials associated with these cases.