THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTIONS BY AN INTERSTATE COMPACT AGENCY. Jeffrey B. Litwak 1

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTIONS BY AN INTERSTATE COMPACT AGENCY. Jeffrey B. Litwak 1"

Transcription

1 THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTIONS BY AN INTERSTATE COMPACT AGENCY I. Introduction Jeffrey B. Litwak 1 An interstate compact agency is a creature of a compact between two or more states. Like all administrative agencies, a compact agency has only those authorities granted to it, and no more. The compact agency s authorities are derived from the compact that created it. 2 An interstate compact is transformed into federal law when it has received the consent of Congress and is an appropriate subject for federal legislation; 3 however, this designation as federal law does not make all federal law applicable to the compact. 4 Availability of review issues typically occur where a compact is silent concerning judicial review. Federal courts seem to be in agreement that unless specifically provided, a compact entity is not considered a federal agency for the purpose of the federal APA. 5 Whether states administrative procedures acts apply is more complicated. Different 1 Counsel, Columbia River Gorge Commission, an interstate compact agency created by Oregon and Washington; Adjunct Professor of Law, Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College (Interstate Compacts Seminar); Municipal land use hearings officer. The analysis and opinions in these materials are solely those of the author, and do not represent policy of or other stated direction by the Columbia River Gorge Commission. 2 See, e.g., International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 542 v. Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Comm n, 311 F.3d 273, 274 (3d Cir. 2002). 3 Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, (1981). 4 Lakeview Development Corp. v. City of South Lake Tahoe, 915 F.2d 1290, 1295 (9th Cir. 1990). 5 See, e.g., Organic Cow v. Northeast Dairy Compact Comm n, 164 F. Supp. 2d 412, 420 (D.Vt. 2001); Old Town Trolley Tours, Inc., v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm n, 129 F.3d 201, 204 (D.C. Cir. 1997). But see, Seattle Master Builders v. Pac. NW Elec. Power and Cons. Planning Council, 786 F.2d 1359, 1366 (9th Cir. 1986) (Congress directed judicial review pursuant to federal APA). 1

2 courts consider different factors in determining whether state law applies to an interstate compact. For example, the Ninth Circuit has stated that A state can impose state law on a compact organization only if the compact specifically reserves its right to do so. 6 Similarly, the Third Circuit has concluded that states may not impose their laws on a compact simply by adopting similar legislation. 7 To simply subject a compact entity to the states acts could result in non-uniform decision making due to state courts natural familiarity with their own law, state courts differing judicial opinions concerning even identical language, and differing standards of review. 8 With this unique standing in the federalist system, judicial review of compact agency actions raises a few issues not typically seen in federal or state practice. This paper highlights those issues. The reader should note that there is little precedence involving the availability of review for compact agencies, thus much of this material is based on statutes, compacts, and the author s experience. II. Proper Respondent Identifying the proper respondent is usually straightforward in state or federal practice. Similarly, where a compact entity itself is the actor, the respondent will 6 Seattle Master Builders v. Pac. NW Elec. Power and Cons. Planning Council, 786 F.2d 1359, 1371 (9th Cir. 1986). The Washington State Supreme Court followed this case in Salmon for All v. Department of Fisheries, 821 P.2d 1211, , 118 Wn. 2d 270, 278 (1992). 7 International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 542 v. Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Comm n, 311 F.3d 273, 280 (3d Cir. 2002). 8 Some compacts are subject to state administrative procedures acts, but in a manner that avoids some of these problems. See, e.g., Applicable law: For the purpose of providing a uniform system of law, which in addition to sections 544 to 544p of this title, are applicable to the Commission, the Commission shall adopt regulations relating to administrative procedure * * * consistent with the more restrictive statutory provisions of either State. 16 U.S.C. 544c(b). This provision is incorporated as a condition precedent into the Columbia River Gorge Compact 16 U.S.C. 544o(e); Col. Riv. Gorge Compact. Art. I.a. 2

3 typically be the compact entity itself. While this should always be the case for rulemaking actions, there may be exceptions for adjudication actions. For example: The Columbia River Gorge Commission, an interstate compact agency created by Oregon and Washington acts as an appellate board for all local land use decisions in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. After an appellant exhausts all local administrative remedies, the case goes to the Gorge Commission as Appellant v. Local Government. When a party seeks judicial review of the Gorge Commission s decision on appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals has determined that the Gorge Commission is not the respondent because the Gorge Commission acts only as the adjudicator. 9 Compact agencies are not the only entities that take action pursuant to a compact. Where a state acts pursuant to its obligations under a compact, the proper defendant is typically the state. For example: Connecticut Hearings Officer orders suspension of Connecticut resident s driver s license pursuant to Driver License Compact following a DUI conviction in Maine. Judicial review of that action is against the Connecticut Commissioner because the Driver License Compact is administered by the party states. 10 III. Methods of Obtaining Judicial Review A. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction to review a compact agency s action may come from many sources the compact, other state statutes that implement a compact, conditions that Congress places on its consent; or general administrative law principles where the above are silent. In many cases, jurisdiction to review an administrative decision must be inferred from a general grant of jurisdiction. Below are several examples. 9 Johnson v. Multnomah County, No. CA A (Or. App. Feb. 1, 2002) (sua sponte order changing title of case from Multnomah County v. Columbia River Gorge Commission). 10 Bard v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 768 A.2d 960, 963, 62 Conn. App. 45, 51 (2001). 3

4 Example of compact specifying jurisdiction to review administrative action Judicial proceedings to review any bylaw, rule, regulation, order or other action of the [Delaware River and Bay] authority or to determine the meaning or effect thereof, may be brought in such court of each state, and pursuant to such law or rules thereof, as a similar proceeding with respect to any agency of such state might be brought. 11 Example of state statute with general grant of jurisdiction The States consent to suits, actions or proceedings or any form or nature at law, in equity, or otherwise... against the Port of New York Authority. 12 * * * Example of a condition of congressional consent ( general grant of jurisdiction) The FBI or a Party State may appeal any decision of the Council to the Attorney General, and thereafter may file suit in the appropriate district court of the United States, which shall have original jurisdiction of all cases or controversies arising under this Compact. Any suit arising under this Compact and initiated in a State court shall be removed to the appropriate district court of the United States in the manner provided by section 1446 of title 28, United States Code, or other statutory authority. 13 B. Venue It is surprising that there is little case law concerning venue for compact agency actions because venue is not as straightforward as with federal and state agencies. Venue for federal agency action is specified in the general venue statute, which provides venue, in any judicial district in which: (1) a defendant in the action resides, or (2) the cause of action arose, or (3) any real property involved in the action is situated, or (4) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action. 14 States generally specify venue 11 The Delaware-New Jersey Compact, Art. XV. Note also that this provision expressly preserves the states laws, probably including the states Administrative Procedures Acts. 12 N.J. Stat. Ann. 32:1-157 (West 1963); N.Y. Unconsol. Laws 7101 (McKinney 1979). 13 National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, Art. XI (codified at 42 U.S.C (c)). Here, Congress granted consent to the states to create the NCPPC. The terms are treated as conditions that Congress may properly attach to its consent. See e.g. Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm n, 359 U.S. 275, 281 (1959) U.S.C. 1391(e). 4

5 for judicial review of agency actions in the judicial district where an agency is headquartered or where the petitioner resides or has its principal business office. 15 Some states specify a different venue for review of adjudications. 16 For compact agencies, however, venue may be specified in a compact, in state statutes that implement a compact, or in conditions that Congress places on its consent, or venue may not be specified at all. Because a compact entity may act in a state where it is not headquartered, venue may be proper in more than one state court, thus increasing the opportunity for forum shopping. In this situation, a court must decide to hear the matter; dismiss the matter for refilling in another state s court; or possibly transfer the matter to another state s court as if it were as it were transferring to another court in its own state. In a case where a court must decide venue as between more than one state, it may look to general principles resolving conflicts-of-laws or forum non conveniens. Although not an administrative review matter, Gauntt Constr. Co. v. Delaware River and Bay Auth., 575 A.2d 13 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1990) provides an interesting look into, the difficult question of whether New Jersey or Delaware law should apply when both states have concurrent jurisdiction. The Columbia River Gorge Compact (codified at Or. Rev. Stat and Wash. Rev. Code ) provides a good example of just how peculiar venue issues may become. Here, Congress consent contained a condition precedent that the state courts of Oregon and Washington shall have jurisdiction over any appeal of any order, 15 See, e.g., ORS and RCW See, e.g., ORS , specifying venue for contested cases directly in the Court of Appeals. 5

6 regulation, or other action of the Columbia River Gorge Commission. 17 Congress consent and the compact are silent concerning venue. However, an Oregon statute provides that a petition for judicial review of a Gorge Commission decision must be filed in the Oregon Court of Appeals. 18 There is no similar Washington statute. Past practice for seeking judicial review in Washington courts has been to file in trial courts. Hence, judicial review may occur in more than one state and may occur at different levels depending on whether judicial review is sought in an Oregon or Washington court. Venue issues may also arise as within a state. For example, should venue lie within the judicial district where a state capitol is located (as might be for state agencies)? The Gorge Commission recently addressed this very question ;the Commission s brief on this point is attached. Venue in a state capitol s judicial district may be an erroneous de facto recognition that an independent compact entity is subject to that state s APA. IV. Primary Jurisdiction Primary jurisdiction applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body. 19 There is no case law where a court has specifically declined to review a matter under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. However, because one of the purposes of an interstate compact is to bring uniformity to the states, where state law is absent or differs, strictly applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction may promote uniformity U.S.C. 544m(b)(6). 18 ORS (2)(a). 19 United States v. Western Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 59, (1956). 6

7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR COUNTY OF CLARK JOSEPH A. and SANDRA S. BACUS, ) Husband and wife ) 91 Sprague Landing Road ) No Stevenson, WA ) (509) ) AMICUS CURIAE COLUMBIA ) RIVER GORGE COMMISSION S Plaintiffs, ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ) CONCERNING SKAMANIA v. ) COUNTY S MOTION TO ) CHANGE VENUE SKAMANIA COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ) A Washington State County ) P.O. Box 790 ) Stevenson, WA ) ) Defendant. ) ) The Columbia River Gorge Commission respectfully submits this amicus curiae brief concerning proper venue for judicial review of a decision of the Commission. On March 2, 2005, Skamania County filed a motion to change venue for this matter from Clark to Skamania County or Thurston County. For the reasons contained in this brief, Thurston County is not the proper venue for this matter. AMICUS CURIAE COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE COMMISSION S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES CONCERNING VENUE 1

8 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 1986, Congress adopted the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act (Act), 16 U.S.C. 544 et seq. The Act established the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (National Scenic Area), granted consent to Washington and Oregon to enter into an interstate compact to create the Columbia River Gorge Commission, and established various management standards for the National Scenic Area. One of the important reasons for the existence of the Commission is to ensure uniform land use throughout the bistate region. Robert Packwood, The Columbia River Gorge Needs Federal Protection, 15 Envt l. L. 67 (1988); 132 Cong. Rec. 29,498 (1986) (statement of Sen. Packwood); Id. (statement of Sen. Evans). Washington and Oregon adopted the Columbia River Gorge Compact in 1987, and established the Commission. The Compact is codified at RCW and ORS The National Scenic Area Act states that the Commission is a regional agency. 16 U.S.C. 544c(a)(1)(A). The Commission may also be referred to as an interstate compact agency. The Commission is not a federal agency, is not a Washington state agency, and is not an Oregon state agency. See e.g., Brooklyn Bridge Park Coalition v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 951 F Supp 383, 393 (ED NY 1997) (citations omitted) The Eastern District of New York stated, Compact Clause entities are hybrids occupying a special position in the federal system. As the Supreme Court has recognized, a Compact Clause entity is really the creation of multiple sovereigns: the compacting states whose actions are its genesis, and the federal government whose approval is constitutionally required when the agency will operate in an area affecting the national interest. AMICUS CURIAE COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE COMMISSION S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES CONCERNING VENUE 2

9 As required by the Act, the Commission developed a regional Management Plan in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service. Five of the six Gorge counties then developed land use ordinances that implement the Management Plan, and which the Commission determined were consistent with the Management Plan. 21 The Commission implements an ordinance in Klickitat County. As a result, all land use in the National Scenic Area will be consistent with the Management Plan. Columbia River Gorge United v. Yeutter, 960 F.2d 110, 112 (1992). To further ensure uniform land use, the Act requires the Commission to hear appeals of all land use decisions in the National Scenic Area. 16 U.S.C. 544m(a)(2). Finally, and most relevant here, the Commission must adopt internal rules that are consistent with the more restrictive of specified state statutes. 16 U.S.C. 544c(b). One of the specified statutes is the states administrative procedures acts. Id. This matter involves judicial review of a decision of the Commission. Bacus v. Skamania County, CRGC No. COA-S (August 10, 2004), reconsideration denied (November 9, 2004). Skamania County asks this Court to change venue for this matter to either Skamania County or Thurston County, at the plaintiff s discretion. Skamania County s reason for suggesting Thurston County is The case is not covered by the Land Use Petition Act. It is therefore 21 Multnomah, Hood River, and Wasco counties in Oregon, and Clark and Skamania counties in Washington implement Scenic Area ordinances. Klickitat County, Washington refused to do so, so the Commission implements a Scenic Area land use ordinance there. AMICUS CURIAE COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE COMMISSION S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES CONCERNING VENUE 3

10 subject to RCW 34.05, the Administrative Procedure Act. See Sworn Statement of Peter S. Banks, attached as page 2 of Motion to Change Venue. II. THURSTON COUNTY IS NOT THE PROPER VENUE FOR THIS MATTER BECAUSE THIS MATTER IS NOT DIRECTLY SUBJECT TO RCW For several reasons, RCW 34.05, the Administrative Procedure Act, is not directly applicable to this matter. First, as noted above, the National Scenic Area Act expressly requires: Applicable law: For the purpose of providing a uniform system of law, which in addition to sections 544 to 544p of this title, are applicable to the Commission, the Commission shall adopt regulations relating to administrative procedure * * * consistent with the more restrictive statutory provisions of either State. 16 U.S.C. 544c(b). As required by the Act, the Commission adopted such administrative procedures. See inter alia, Commission Rules ; In this matter, as with all other administrative decisions, the Commission thus applies administrative procedures that have their genesis in both the Washington APA (ch RCW) and the Oregon APA (ch. 183 ORS). Because the Commission must make its decisions pursuant to standards derived from both states APAs, this Court must consider both statutes in its review of the Commission s decision. The Washington APA specifies venue inthurston County because that is where state agencies are headquartered. The Gorge Commission is not headquartered in Thurston County, nor Marion County, Oregon. Rather the Gorge Commission is headquartered in Klickitat County. 22 The Commission s rules are available on the Commission s website at %20Rules.html. AMICUS CURIAE COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE COMMISSION S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES CONCERNING VENUE 4

11 Further, Oregon does not treat Oregon s APA as directly applicable to Commission decisions. ORS contains numerous jurisdictional and venue standards for judicial review of Commission decisions brought in Oregon courts. ORS (3) lists only specific provisions of the Oregon APA that are applied to decisions of the Commission, except where the National Scenic Area Act provides otherwise. ORS , the Oregon APA provision allowing judicial review in Marion County, Oregon, 23 is not one of the provisions specified. Second, prior case law from the Washington Court of Appeals, Division III, provides that the provisions of the Scenic Area Act do not constitute a state program. Klickitat County v. State, 71 Wn. App. 760, 767 (1993). As such, the Washington APA should not directly apply to this matter. It applies only as specifically reserved in the National Scenic Area Act and Columbia River Gorge Compact. Third and similarly, an axiom of interstate compact law is that a court may not order relief inconsistent with the express terms of a compact. Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554, 564 (1983). Again, the express terms of the Columbia River Gorge Compact require the Commission to make decisions based on its own administrative rule that is consistent with the more restrictive of Washington s APA and Oregon s APA. 24 If a court were to review a decision of 23 ORS is the Oregon equivalent to RCW (1), which provides for venue in Thurston County. 24 Although the states APAs are reserved in Act, the Compact expressly incorporates the Act. See Art. I, sec. a. (codified at RCW and ORS ). AMICUS CURIAE COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE COMMISSION S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES CONCERNING VENUE 5

12 the Commission solely under the terms of one of those acts, then it may be ordering relief that is inconsistent with the Compact. Finally, there is precedent that Thurston County is not the prior venue for this matter. In a prior case involving a rulemaking decision by the Gorge Commission in 1993, Friends of the Columbia Gorge sought judicial review in Thurston County Superior Court. On motion from the Gorge Commission, Thurston County Superior Court changed venue and transferred the case to Skamania County. Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River Gorge Comm n, No (Thurston County Sup. Ct. Dec. 1, 1993) (Order Granting Motion of Columbia River Gorge Commission). A copy of the Commission s motion, Friends response, and the Court s order are attached at Exhibit A to this memorandum. III. CONCLUSION In conclusion, because the Washington APA is not directly applicable to judicial review of Commission decisions, Thurston County would not be a proper venue for this matter. The Commission gives no opinion concerning whether this matter could properly be heard in Clark County or should be transferred to Skamania County. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this day of April, 2005 JEFFREY B. LITWAK, WSBA No Counsel Columbia River Gorge Commission AMICUS CURIAE COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE COMMISSION S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES CONCERNING VENUE 6

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF OREGON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF OREGON IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF OREGON RICHARD J. MURRAY and ) GEORGIANA MURRAY, ) Wasco County Circuit Court ) No. 9700012CC Plaintiffs-Respondents, ) ) CA A117707 v. ) ) STATE OF OREGON, ) )

More information

Congressional Consent and other Legal Issues

Congressional Consent and other Legal Issues Congressional Consent and other Legal Issues While a host of legal issues exist for interstate compacts, state officials have traditionally been most concerned with two areas: 1) congressional consent

More information

The Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision

The Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision The Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision Why Your State Can Be Sanctioned Upon Violation of the Compact or the ICAOS Rules. SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 At the request of the ICAOS Executive Committee

More information

BEFORE THE COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE COMMISSION

BEFORE THE COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE COMMISSION BEFORE THE COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE COMMISSION UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD ) COMPANY, ) CRGC NO. COA-16-01 ) Appellant, ) Wasco County No. ) PLASAR 15-01-004; v. ) Order No. 16-067; ) PLAAPL-16-10-0001, 0002, 0003

More information

The Nurse Licensure Compact Enforcement, Disciplinary and Due Process Issues NCSBN Discipline/Case Management Conference.

The Nurse Licensure Compact Enforcement, Disciplinary and Due Process Issues NCSBN Discipline/Case Management Conference. The Nurse Licensure Compact Enforcement, Disciplinary and Due Process Issues 2014 NCSBN Discipline/Case Management Conference June 6, 2014 Richard L. Masters, J.D. Special Counsel - NLCA 1 History Interstate

More information

A Review of Recent Compact Litigation by: Richard L. Masters General Counsel Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision

A Review of Recent Compact Litigation by: Richard L. Masters General Counsel Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision A Review of Recent Compact Litigation by: Richard L. Masters General Counsel Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision Today nearly 200 compacts are in effect involving a wide range of public

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT MOTION TO INTERVENE IN PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT MOTION TO INTERVENE IN PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Americans for Safe Access, et al., ) ) Petitioners, ) No. 11-1265 ) v. ) ) Drug Enforcement Administration, ) ) Respondent. ) MOTION

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-1442 In the Supreme Court of the United States THE GILLETTE COMPANY, THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC., AND SIGMA-ALDRICH, INC., v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 1 1 ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General COLLEEN M. MELODY PATRICIO A. MARQUEZ Assistant Attorneys General Seattle, WA -- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON YAKIMA NEIGHBORHOOD

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 13-1559 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JOHN B. CORR, et al., Petitioners, v. METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW MEXICO; THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ALBUQUERQUE/ BERNALILLO COUNTY, INC.; SAGE COUNCIL; NEW MEXICO

More information

Case 1:17-cv CKK Document 48 Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:17-cv CKK Document 48 Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 48 Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-1320

More information

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION Page D-1 ANNEX D REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION WT/DS285/2 13 June 2003 (03-3174) Original: English UNITED STATES MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER

More information

Section 4. Table of State Court Authorities Governing Judicial Adjuncts and Comparison Between State Rules and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53

Section 4. Table of State Court Authorities Governing Judicial Adjuncts and Comparison Between State Rules and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 Section 4. Table of State Court Authorities Governing Judicial Adjuncts and Comparison Between State Rules and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 This chart originally appeared in Lynn Jokela & David F. Herr, Special

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE SEARCH WARRANT FOR RECORDS FROM AT&T. Argued: January 17, 2017 Opinion Issued: June 9, 2017

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE SEARCH WARRANT FOR RECORDS FROM AT&T. Argued: January 17, 2017 Opinion Issued: June 9, 2017 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

Constitution. Statutes. Administrative Rules. Common Law

Constitution. Statutes. Administrative Rules. Common Law Constitution Statutes Administrative Rules Common Law Drafters / Ratifiers Ratification Constitution Legislatures Enactment Statutes Administrative Agencies Promulgation Administrative Rules Courts Opinion

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States i No. 11-798 In the Supreme Court of the United States AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., Petitioners, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2005 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-19-2005 Bolus v. Cappy Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-3835 Follow this and additional

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 13-1559 In the Supreme Court of the United States JOHN B. CORR, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

More information

Natural Resources Journal

Natural Resources Journal Natural Resources Journal 17 Nat Resources J. 3 (Summer 1977) Summer 1977 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 Scott A. Taylor Susan Wayland Recommended Citation Scott A. Taylor & Susan

More information

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 12-5134 Document: 01018990262 Date Filed: 01/25/2013 Page: 1 Nos. 12-5134 & 12-5136 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT State of Oklahoma, Appellee/Plaintiff, v.

More information

In The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 22O141, Original ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE

More information

What is an Interstate Compact?

What is an Interstate Compact? What is an Interstate Compact? Simple, versatile and proven tool Effective means of cooperatively addressing common problems Contract between states Creates economies of scale Responds to national priorities

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Hopson v. Uttecht Doc. 0 BARUTI HOPSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CASE NO. C--MJP v. Petitioner, RECOMMENDATION JEFFREY UTTECHT, Respondent. 0 This matter comes

More information

Phillips Lytle LLP. Legality of Proposed Dissolution of Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority by Act of New York State Legislature

Phillips Lytle LLP. Legality of Proposed Dissolution of Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority by Act of New York State Legislature --.- I Phillips Lytle LLP General Manager Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority One Peace Bridge Plaza Buffalo, NY 14213-2494 Re: Legality of Proposed Dissolution of Buffalo and Fort Erie Public

More information

ICAOS Advisory Opinion

ICAOS Advisory Opinion 1 Background & History: The State of Arkansas reported that the State of Washington denied recent transfer requests for three (3) Arkansas offenders eligible for transfer under Rule 3.101 of ICAOS Rules.

More information

Case 3:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TACOMA DIVISION

Case 3:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TACOMA DIVISION Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TACOMA DIVISION DALE DANIELSON, a Washington State employee; BENJAMIN RAST, a Washington State employee;

More information

FILED State of California v. Little Sisters of the Poor, No

FILED State of California v. Little Sisters of the Poor, No Case: 18-15144, 12/13/2018, ID: 11119524, DktEntry: 136-2, Page 1 of 9 FILED State of California v. Little Sisters of the Poor, No. 18-15144+ DEC 13 2018 Kleinfeld, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting: MOLLY

More information

Chapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies.

Chapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies. Chapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies. Administrative agencies are governmental bodies other than the courts or the legislatures

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 141, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, PLAINTIFF v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO AND STATE OF COLORADO ON THE EXCEPTION BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE FIRST INTERIM REPORT OF THE

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 13-634 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- MONTANA SHOOTING

More information

Rosario v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J NY Slip Op 33148(U) December 5, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2018 Judge:

Rosario v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J NY Slip Op 33148(U) December 5, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2018 Judge: Rosario v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. 2018 NY Slip Op 33148(U) December 5, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 150040/2018 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,

More information

RCEs HAVE NO IMPACT ON PTA IF FILED AFTER THE THREE YEAR DEADLINE HAS PASSED

RCEs HAVE NO IMPACT ON PTA IF FILED AFTER THE THREE YEAR DEADLINE HAS PASSED RCEs HAVE NO IMPACT ON PTA IF FILED AFTER THE THREE YEAR DEADLINE HAS PASSED By Richard Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC 1 I. ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS Let's get the acronyms and definitions out of the way:

More information

No. DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2007 MT 130

No. DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2007 MT 130 No. DA 06-0388 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2007 MT 130 YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, JAMES RENO and DWIGHT VIGNESS, v. ROBERTA DREW, and Petitioners and Respondents, Respondent and Appellant, MONTANA

More information

Interstate Commission for Juveniles

Interstate Commission for Juveniles Background: 1 Pursuant to ICJ Rule 9-101(3), the state of Vermont has requested an advisory opinion regarding the requirements of the Compact and ICJ Rules on the issues described below. Issues: 1. Is

More information

Interstate Compacts, Michael L. Buenger

Interstate Compacts, Michael L. Buenger Interstate Compacts, 2004 Michael L. Buenger I. Interstate Compact Law, an historical perspective: a. Compacts are rooted in the nation s colonial past where agreements similar to modern compacts were

More information

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

Attorneys for Amici Curiae No. 09-115 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Petitioners, v. MICHAEL B. WHITING, et al., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-bas-wvg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 ADRIANA ROVAI, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv--bas

More information

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND MANDAMUS ADVISORY JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND MANDAMUS ADVISORY JURY TRIAL REQUESTED SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, 402 KING FARM BOULEVARD, SUITE 125-145, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850, (202-643-7232), VS. PLAINTIFF, Case. No.: 2015 CA

More information

JOSEPH L. FIORDALISO, ET AL., Petitioners,

JOSEPH L. FIORDALISO, ET AL., Petitioners, Su:~erne Court, U.$. No. 14-694 OFFiC~ OF -~ Hi:.. CLERK ~gn the Supreme Court of th~ Unitell State~ JOSEPH L. FIORDALISO, ET AL., Petitioners, V. PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition

More information

ESSB H COMM AMD By Committee on State Government, Elections & Information Technology

ESSB H COMM AMD By Committee on State Government, Elections & Information Technology 00-S.E AMH SEIT H. ESSB 00 - H COMM AMD By Committee on State Government, Elections & Information Technology ADOPTED AS AMENDED 0//0 1 Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert the following:

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 15 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID NASH, v. Plaintiff - Appellant, KEN LEWIS, individually and

More information

Judicial Recess Appointments: A Survey of the Arguments

Judicial Recess Appointments: A Survey of the Arguments Judicial Recess Appointments: A Survey of the Arguments An Addendum Lawrence J.C. VanDyke, Esq. (Dallas, Texas) The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy initiatives.

More information

State Statutory Provisions Addressing Mutual Protection Orders

State Statutory Provisions Addressing Mutual Protection Orders State Statutory Provisions Addressing Mutual Protection Orders Revised 2014 National Center on Protection Orders and Full Faith & Credit 1901 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1011 Arlington, Virginia 22209

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1166 Document #1671681 Filed: 04/18/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT WALTER COKE, INC.,

More information

In The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 14-340 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- FRIENDS OF AMADOR

More information

DEFINED TIMEFRAMES FOR RATE CASES (i.e., suspension period)

DEFINED TIMEFRAMES FOR RATE CASES (i.e., suspension period) STATE Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado DEFINED TIMEFRAMES FOR RATE CASES (i.e., suspension period) 6 months. Ala. Code 37-1-81. Using the simplified Operating Margin Method, however,

More information

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL.

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL. No. 05-445 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

More information

Case No , & (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Case No , & (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case: 13-4330 Document: 003111516193 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/24/2014 Case No. 13-4330, 13-4394 & 13-4501 (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: U. S. (1999) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,

More information

In the Suprerr Court oft UnitedStates

In the Suprerr Court oft UnitedStates No. 10-454 In the Suprerr Court oft UnitedStates ARIZONA CATTLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, Vo KEN L. SALAZAR, et al., Respondents. On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON CA A

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON CA A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF In the Matter of the Marriage of HAROLD S. SHEPHERD Petitioner on Review THE STATE OF OREGON CA A 138344 And Multnomah County Circuit SUSAN H.F. SHEPHERD, nka Susan Finch, aka No.

More information

N.J.A.C. 6A:4, APPEALS TABLE OF CONTENTS

N.J.A.C. 6A:4, APPEALS TABLE OF CONTENTS N.J.A.C. 6A:4, APPEALS TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6A:4-1.1 Purpose and scope 6A:4-1.2 Definitions 6A:4-1.3 Appeal of decision SUBCHAPTER 2. PROCEDURES FOR APPEAL 6A:4-2.1 Who may

More information

15-20-CV FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ALLCO FINANCE LIMITED Plaintiff-Appellant

15-20-CV FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ALLCO FINANCE LIMITED Plaintiff-Appellant 15-20-CV To Be Argued By: ROBERT D. SNOOK Assistant Attorney General IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ALLCO FINANCE LIMITED Plaintiff-Appellant v. ROBERT KLEE, in his Official

More information

States Permitting Or Prohibiting Mutual July respondent in the same action.

States Permitting Or Prohibiting Mutual July respondent in the same action. Alabama No Code of Ala. 30-5-5 (c)(1) A court may issue mutual protection orders only if a separate petition has been filed by each party. Alaska No Alaska Stat. 18.66.130(b) A court may not grant protective

More information

Case 2:16-cv TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 08/24/17 Page 1 of 11

Case 2:16-cv TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 08/24/17 Page 1 of 11 Case :-cv-0-tln-ac Document Filed 0// Page of SLOTE, LINKS & BOREMAN, LLP Robert D. Links (SBN ) (bo@slotelaw.com) Adam G. Slote, Esq. (SBN ) (adam@slotelaw.com) Marglyn E. Paseka (SBN 0) (margie@slotelaw.com)

More information

Case 2:17-cv RSL Document 15 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 11

Case 2:17-cv RSL Document 15 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 11 Case :-cv-0-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, DOING BUSINESS AS CHRISTIANA

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States NO. 12-374 In the Supreme Court of the United States SCHOLASTIC BOOK CLUBS, INC., Petitioner, v. RICHARD H. ROBERTS, COMMISSIONER OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT THE LOAN SYNDICATIONS AND TRADING ASSOCIATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 17-5004 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; BOARD

More information

Page 1 of 6. Washington Courts Opinions. Court of Appeals Division I State of Washington. Opinion Information Sheet

Page 1 of 6. Washington Courts Opinions. Court of Appeals Division I State of Washington. Opinion Information Sheet Page 1 of 6 Washington Courts Opinions Graphics View Print Page Court of Appeals Division I State of Washington Opinion Information Sheet Docket Number: 52294-9-I Title of Case: Derek Walters, Appellant

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WEST LINN CORPORATE PARK L.L.C., v. Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 05-36061

More information

Case 2:12-cv RAJ Document 13 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 16

Case 2:12-cv RAJ Document 13 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 16 Case :-cv-00-raj Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 0 0 THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON v. Plaintiff, STATE OF WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON STATE GAMBLING

More information

Apr 18, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. KLICKITAT COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington,

Apr 18, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. KLICKITAT COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Case :-cv-000-lrs Document Filed 0// 0 David R. Quesnel, WSBA # Klickitat County Prosecuting Attorney S. Columbus Ave. MS-CH, Room 0 Goldendale, WA 0 Telephone: (0) - Facsimile: (0) - Email: davidq@klickitatcounty.org

More information

ARBITRATING INSURANCE DISPUTES IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT: "CHOICE OF LAW" PROVISIONS ROLE IN FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT PREEMPTION OF STATE ARBITRATION LAWS

ARBITRATING INSURANCE DISPUTES IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT: CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS ROLE IN FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT PREEMPTION OF STATE ARBITRATION LAWS ARBITRATING INSURANCE DISPUTES IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT: "CHOICE OF LAW" PROVISIONS ROLE IN FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT PREEMPTION OF STATE ARBITRATION LAWS I. INTRODUCTION MELICENT B. THOMPSON, Esq. 1 Partner

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-931 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- THE STATE OF NEVADA,

More information

Howard Shale, Appellant' s Response to Brief of Amicus. Curiae

Howard Shale, Appellant' s Response to Brief of Amicus. Curiae No. 44654-5 -II COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION II OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, vs. Howard Shale, Appellant. Jefferson County Superior Court Cause No. 12-1- 00194-0 The Honorable

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 10-879 In the Supreme Court of the United States GLORIA GAIL KURNS, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE M. CORSON, DECEASED, ET AL., Petitioners, v. RAILROAD FRICTION PRODUCTS CORPORATION, ET AL. Respondents.

More information

Case 1:18-cv BKS-ATB Document 32 Filed 12/17/18 Page 1 of 9. Plaintiffs, Defendants. For Defendants:

Case 1:18-cv BKS-ATB Document 32 Filed 12/17/18 Page 1 of 9. Plaintiffs, Defendants. For Defendants: Case 1:18-cv-00134-BKS-ATB Document 32 Filed 12/17/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC.; ROBERT NASH; and BRANDON KOCH,

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #12-1272 Document #1384888 Filed: 07/20/2012 Page 1 of 9 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT White Stallion Energy Center,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 537 U. S. (2002) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of

More information

Case 5:15-cv L Document 1 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Case 5:15-cv L Document 1 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Case 5:15-cv-00241-L Document 1 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1 JOHN R. SHOTTON, an individual, v. Plaintiff, (2 HOWARD F. PITKIN, in his individual

More information

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ANSWER OF THE INDEPENDENT MARKET MONITOR FOR PJM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ANSWER OF THE INDEPENDENT MARKET MONITOR FOR PJM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Panda Stonewall LLC ) ) ) Docket No. ER17-1821-002 To: The Honorable Suzanne Krolikowski Presiding Administrative Law Judge ANSWER

More information

No In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING COMPANY, et al.,

No In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING COMPANY, et al., i No. 07-308 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING COMPANY, et al., Petitioner, Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of

More information

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 810 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1987) Joseph A. Maria, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., for plaintiff-appellant.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 810 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1987) Joseph A. Maria, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., for plaintiff-appellant. C.p. Chemical Company, Inc., Plaintiff appellant, v. United States of America and U.S. Consumer Product Safetycommission, Defendantsappellees, 810 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1987) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second

More information

# (OAL Decision: Not yet available online)

# (OAL Decision: Not yet available online) # 355-06 (OAL Decision Not yet available online) LENAPE REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, BURLINGTON COUNTY, PETITIONER, NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT, LENAPE REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA Rel: January 11, 2019 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama

More information

Unit 2 Sources of Law ARE 306. I. Constitutions

Unit 2 Sources of Law ARE 306. I. Constitutions Unit 2 Sources of Law ARE 306 I. Constitutions A constitution is usually a written document that sets forth the powers, and limitations thereof, of a government. It represents an agreement between a government

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case 8:17-cv-00356-JVS-JCG Document 75 Filed 01/08/18 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:1452 Present: The Honorable James V. Selna Karla J. Tunis Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present Not Present

More information

16 USC 460l-5. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see

16 USC 460l-5. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see TITLE 16 - CONSERVATION CHAPTER 1 - NATIONAL PARKS, MILITARY PARKS, MONUMENTS, AND SEASHORES SUBCHAPTER LXIX - OUTDOOR RECREATION PROGRAMS Part B - Land and Water Conservation Fund 460l 5. Land and water

More information

NO In the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SHARON M. HELMAN, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

NO In the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SHARON M. HELMAN, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, NO. 2015-3086 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SHARON M. HELMAN, v. Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent. On Petition for Review of the Merit Systems Protection

More information

The Effect of Administrative Decisions on Claims for Compensation in Circuit Court Under Measure 37

The Effect of Administrative Decisions on Claims for Compensation in Circuit Court Under Measure 37 \\server05\productn\o\oel\20-2\oel204.txt unknown Seq: 1 22-JUN-06 16:11 SUSAN MARMADUKE* The Effect of Administrative Decisions on Claims for Compensation in Circuit Court Under Measure 37 INTRODUCTION

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. BRIAN SULLIVAN, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION March 15,

More information

Name Change Laws. Current as of February 23, 2017

Name Change Laws. Current as of February 23, 2017 Name Change Laws Current as of February 23, 2017 MAP relies on the research conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality for this map and the statutes found below. Alabama An applicant must

More information

The New York State Attorney General is barred from enforcing state STATES LACK ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY OVER NATIONAL BANKS

The New York State Attorney General is barred from enforcing state STATES LACK ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY OVER NATIONAL BANKS STATES LACK ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY OVER NATIONAL BANKS THOMAS J. HALL In this article, the author analyzes a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejecting

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON FILED THE TIPTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION BY TIPTON COUNTY BOARD OF April 7, 1998 EDUCATION, Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate

More information

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV- COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF COMPLAINT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV- COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF COMPLAINT Case 1:16-cv-00452-TCB Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION COMMON CAUSE and GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 22O145, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF DELAWARE, PLAINTIFF, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND STATE OF WISCONSIN, DEFENDANTS. BRIEF OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN AND MOTION

More information

BEFORE THE SKAMANIA COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER

BEFORE THE SKAMANIA COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER BEFORE THE SKAMANIA COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER In the Matter of the Applications of ) NO. CMP-13-02/REZ-13-02 ) Pope Resources ) ) Pope Resources ) Swift Sub Area Comprehensive Plan ) Map Amendment and Rezone

More information

Terance Healy v. Attorney General Pennsylvania

Terance Healy v. Attorney General Pennsylvania 2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-14-2014 Terance Healy v. Attorney General Pennsylvania Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.

More information

ARBITRATION: CHALLENGES TO A MOTION TO COMPEL

ARBITRATION: CHALLENGES TO A MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION: CHALLENGES TO A MOTION TO COMPEL TARA L. SOHLMAN 214.712.9563 Tara.Sohlman@cooperscully.com 2019 This paper and/or presentation provides information on general legal issues. I is not intended

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF MICHIGAN, PETITIONER v. BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW MEXICO; THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ALBUQUERQUE/BERNALILLO COUNTY, INC.; SAGE COUNCILL NEW MEXICO

More information

Case 1:11-cv BJR Document 72 Filed 07/05/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:11-cv BJR Document 72 Filed 07/05/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:11-cv-00160-BJR Document 72 Filed 07/05/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CALIFORNIA VALLEY MIWOK TRIBE, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:11-CV-00160-BJR v.

More information

In The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 141, Original ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 4, 2000 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 4, 2000 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 4, 2000 Session THE CITY OF JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE v. ERNEST D. CAMPBELL, ET AL. Appeal from the Law Court for Washington County No. 19637 Jean

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON SCOTT E. STAFNE, a single man, ) ) No. 84894-7 Respondent and ) Cross Petitioner, ) ) v. ) En Banc ) SNOHOMISH COUNTY and ) SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING ) DEPARTMENT

More information

In The Supreme Court Of The United States

In The Supreme Court Of The United States No. 22O141, Original In The Supreme Court Of The United States STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO and STATE OF COLORADO, Defendants. On Motion for Leave to File Complaint REPLY BRIEF OF

More information

IN THE Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-278 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, v. Petitioner, JESSICA GONZALES, individually and as next best friend of her deceased minor children REBECCA GONZALES,

More information

The Law Library: A Brief Guide

The Law Library: A Brief Guide The Law Library: A Brief Guide I. INTRODUCTION Welcome to the Chase Law Library! Law books may at first appear intimidating, but you will gradually find them logical and easy to use. The Reference Staff

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 05-85 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States POWEREX CORP., Petitioner, v. RELIANT ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of

More information