There are many interesting cases pending before the Supreme Court this term that may impact the options available to your lawyer during your representation.

First, one of the cases before the Court has the potential for dramatically altering the appellate remedies available to a party whose motion for summary judgment is denied. Currently, in Florida's federal courts, if a party's motion for summary judgment is denied, the only forum available to review such denial is through an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b). A pretrial denial of a motion for summary judgment is not currently considered reviewable on appeal following a full trial and a judgment on the merits. That understanding may change, however, depending upon the Supreme Court's ruling in Ortiz v. Jordon. The issue before the Court in that case is whether a party can appeal an order denying summary judgment after a full trial on the merits. If the Court determines that such a denial is appealable after a full trial, your attorney will no longer be limited to seeking review of an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment through an interlocutory appeal, but will perhaps have the option of seeking review either before or after a judgment on the merits is returned.

In addition to Ortiz v. Jordon, the Supreme Court is also considering two cases involving the effect of government's power to invoke the "state secrets" doctrine to prevent the disclosure of information in court. In General Dynamics Corp. v. U.S. and Boeing Co. v. U.S., the Court will determine if General Dynamics and Boeing were effectively denied the right to defend themselves, such that their constitutional rights to due process were violated, because they could not gain access to certain secret technology, which they contend was necessary to defend themselves against the breach of contract claims levied by the Navy. If the Court does condition the government's ability to invoke the "state secrets" doctrine in a civil case, there may be additional avenues of discovery available to your attorney to help prepare your case if you are involved in a lawsuit against the United States.

Finally, the Court will also consider two cases involving the "stream of commerce" theory that may be used as a jurisdictional basis for U.S. courts to entertain lawsuits against foreign companies whose products may enter U.S. markets. In Goodyear Luxembourg Tires, et al., v. Brown, et al. and J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. V. Nicastro, the Court will determine whether a state court has authority to decide a case against an overseas company whose products may be introduced into the "stream of commerce" without limiting the geographic distribution of such products, even if no product within the state caused the injury to the plaintiff. If the Court determines that state courts do not have the authority to decide a case in these circumstances, it may limit any opportunity to sue a foreign manufacturer for an injury outside its borders of the forum state.