WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito could participate in several cases with far-reaching implications for business.
Among the cases on the Supreme Court docket are:
^------
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink Inc.
At issue is whether Illinois Tool Works violated the Sherman Antitrust Act that limits monopolies when one of its companies required the purchase of its unpatented ink with its patented printheads. Independent Ink makes patented ink that can be used with the printheads.
^------
Domino's Pizza Inc. v. McDonald
John McDonald sued Domino's Pizza, contending that the company ended contracts with JWM Investments because he is black. McDonald, who is the president and sole shareholder of JWM Investments, said the termination of the contracts caused him emotional hardships. McDonald was not a party to the contracts and the issue is whether someone in that capacity can sue citing discrimination.
^------
Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, Shell Oil v. Dagher
Thousands of gas station owners sued Texaco and Shell Oil, arguing that the companies established a joint venture to set the price of its products. The gas station owners claimed that the action was a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
^------
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno
The state of Ohio gave tax credits and exemptions to DaimlerChrysler and the company decided to build a vehicle-assembly plant. Plaintiffs in the case contend that the credits and exemptions violate the commerce clause, with one state benefitting at the expense of others.
The National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed amicus briefs in the case, urging the Supreme Court to review it. The NAM brief points out how companies and local jurisdictions rely on tax incentives.
^------
Rapanos v. United States
Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers
The United States filed civil charges against a landowner, accusing him of filling in wetlands in violation of the Clean Water Act. The government argued that the move was to make the land more attractive for development. The landowner contended that the wetlands were not adjacent to wetlands that would fall under the Clean Water Act.