In The Supreme Court of the United States

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "In The Supreme Court of the United States"

Transcription

1 No ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States JOHN DOE AP, versus Petitioner, ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Respondents On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Missouri REPLY TO THE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI MARCI A. HAMILTON, ESQ. Counsel of Record 36 Timber Knoll Drive Washington Crossing, PA (215) REBECCA RANDLES, ESQ. RANDLES MATA & BROWN, LLC 406 W. 34th Street, Suite 623 Kansas City, MO (816) KENNETH M. CHACKES, ESQ. M. SUSAN CARLSON, ESQ. CHACKES, CARLSON & HALQUIST, LLP 230 S. Bemiston Avenue Suite 800 St. Louis, MO JEFFREY R. ANDERSON, ESQ. PATRICK NOAKER, ESQ. JEFF ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, PA 366 Jackson Street, Suite 100 St. Paul, MN com Counsel for Petitioner John Doe AP ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) OR CALL COLLECT (402)

2 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii INTRODUCTION... 1 I. There Is No Adequate And Independent State Ground That Would Render A First Amendment Holding Superfluous To Final Resolution Of This Case... 1 II. There Is A Split In Authority On The Question Of Whether The First Amendment Is A Defense To Liability For A Religious Employer s Acts Of Negligence... 4 III. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church And School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Is Not Controlling, And Does Not Sweep As Broadly As Respondent Describes It CONCLUSION... 12

3 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Amato v. Greenquist, 679 N.E.2d 446 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)... 5 Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995)... 6 Bequette v. Buff, 862 S.W.2d 921 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)... 1 Bear Valley Church of Christ v. DeBose, 928 P.2d 1315 (Colo. 1996)... 5 Berry v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of New York, Inc., 879 A.2d 1124 (N.H. 2005)... 5 Blakely v. Blakely, 83 S.W.3d 537 (Mo. 2002)... 9 Bradley v. Ray, 904 S.W.2d 302 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)... 2 Byrd v. Faber, 565 N.E.2d 584 (Ohio 1991)... 5 Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)... 9 Cook v. Smith, 33 S.W.3d 548 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)... 1 C.J.C. v. Corp. of the Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 985 P.2d 262 (Wash. 1999)... 5 Doe v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 268 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D. Conn. 2003)... 5 Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis, 347 S.W.3d 588 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) Employment Div., Dep t of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)... 7, 9

4 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Continued Page Erickson v. Christenson, 781 P.2d 383 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)... 5 Faheen, by and Through Hebron v. City Parking Corp., 734 S.W.2d 270 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)... 2 F.G. v. MacDonell, 696 A.2d 697 (N.J. 1997)... 5 Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 871 A.2d 1208 (Me. 2005)... 5 General Council on Fin. and Admin., United Methodist Church v. Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, 439 U.S (1998)... 8 Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. 1997)... 7, 10 Goebel v. Johnston, No. 4:09-CV-106 CEJ, 2009 WL (E.D. Mo. Aug. 21, 2009) Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and Sch. v. EEOC, 556 U.S., 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012)... 8, 11, 12 Hutchison v. Luddy, 742 A.2d 1052 (Pa. 1999)... 3 John Doe CS v. Capuchin Franciscan Friars, 520 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (E.D. Mo. 2007) Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979)... 7 Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94 (1952)... 7, 9 Konkle v. Henson, 672 N.E.2d 450 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)... 5

5 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Continued Page Kraus v. Board of Educ., 492 S.W.2d 783 (Mo. 1973)... 6 Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, 907 P.2d 358 (Cal. 1995)... 3 Malicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2002)... 5, 6, 7 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)... 6 Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 196 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 1999)... 5 Martinez v. Primera Asemblea de Dios, Inc., No , 1998 WL (Tex. Ct. App. May 15, 1998)... 5 Mary Doe SD v. The Salvation Army, No. 4:07- CV-362 MLM, 2007 WL (E.D. Mo. Sept. 20, 2007) Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, 814 P.2d 1341 (Cal. 1991)... 3 Mrozka v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, 482 N.W.2d 806 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)... 5 Oliver v. State Tax Comm n, 37 S.W.3d 243 (Mo. 2001)... 9 Olson v. First Church of Nazarene, 661 N.W.2d 254 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)... 5 Perry v. Johnston, 654 F. Supp. 2d 996 (E.D. Mo. 2009) Perry v. Johnston, 641 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2011) Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 1995)... 6

6 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Continued Page Rashedi v. General Bd. of Church of Nazarene, 54 P.3d 349 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002)... 5 Rodi Yachts, Inc. v. National Marine, Inc., 984 F.2d 880 (7th Cir. 1993)... 9 Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson v. Morrison, 905 So. 2d 1213 (Miss. 2005)... 5 Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976)... 7 Smith v. O Connell, 986 F. Supp. 73 (D.R.I. 1997)... 5 Smith v. Privette, 495 S.E.2d 395 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998)... 5 State v. Bullock, 153 S.W.3d 882 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)... 4 State v. Young, 139 S.W.3d 194 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004)... 4 Swanson v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 692 A.2d 441 (Me. 1997)... 6 Weaver v. African Methodist Episcopal, 54 S.W.3d 575 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)... 3 Young v. Gelineau, No , 2007 WL (R.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 20, 2007)... 5 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. amend. I... passim

7 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Continued Page RULES Supreme Court Rule OTHER AUTHORITIES 28 U.S.C (2006)... 8 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 315 (1965)... 2 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 317 (1965)... 1, 2, 3

8 1 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 15.6, Petitioner John Doe AP ( Petitioner ) respectfully submits this Reply to Respondent Archdiocese of Saint Louis ( Respondent or Archdiocese ) Brief in Opposition to John Doe AP s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. I. There Is No Adequate And Independent State Ground That Would Render A First Amendment Holding Superfluous To Final Resolution Of This Case Respondent has mischaracterized Missouri law. A premises requirement is not a necessary element of negligence law in Missouri. Respondent incorrectly states that torts of negligent supervision and intentional failure to supervise have the same premises element adopted from section 317 of the restatement of torts. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 317 (1965) (hereinafter 317 ) (Brief in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari at 13, John Doe AP v. Archdiocese of St. Louis, No (U.S. Feb. 6, 2012) (hereinafter Resp. Opp. ). However, 317 and Missouri s negligence theory in general do not require sex acts with a child to be on the employer s premises to attach liability. Missouri law is clear that supervision goes to the person not the activity. Cook v. Smith, 33 S.W.3d 548, 554 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000); Bequette v. Buff, 862 S.W.2d 921, 924 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). Ownership of premises or instrumentality is only a factor in duty

9 2 if the ownership of the premises or instrumentality provides the means of control. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 317 (1965). That is not the case in child sex abuse cases. Respondent misleadingly treats sex abuse as nothing more than a sex act. This is a gross oversimplification. Child sex abuse is not merely a single act it is a continuum of grooming and building trust that leads to and then involves inappropriate touching and sex acts like the oral rape and attempted anal rape in this case. Respondent placed Fr. Cooper in a position with access to children and took no action to ensure the protection of the children who would inevitably fall into his sphere of influence. Petitioner, a child in a devout Catholic family, who knew Cooper only through the parish, became ensnared in Cooper s web, because Cooper was an employee of the Respondent acting in his assigned role while befriending, grooming, and seducing Petitioner. If a party has a special relationship that gives rise to a duty to either protect the victim or control the bad actor, then liability for negligent supervision can attach without regard to who owns the premises upon which the bad act occurs. RESTATEMENT (SEC- OND) OF TORTS 315 (1965); Bradley v. Ray, 904 S.W.2d 302, 307 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). Special relationships or special facts and circumstances can give rise to a duty to protect third parties from criminal attacks. See Faheen, by and Through Hebron v.

10 3 City Parking Corp., 734 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). Respondent ignores the fact that Fr. Cooper s employment role as a priest created the means for the abuse to occur. Thus, the Archdiocese, which bestowed and created this special relationship, has a duty to protect the child even if some of the actions occurred off-premises. Furthermore, Missouri cases regarding abuse occurring off-premises attach liability. For example, in Weaver v. African Methodist Episcopal, 54 S.W.3d 575 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001), the Missouri Court of Appeals held that a minister who sexually abused another member of the church on property not owned by the church met the requirements of 317. Here, Petitioner s parents only allowed him to go to Fr. Cooper s clubhouse because of his employment as an Archdiocesan priest. Their relationship revolved around Church functions; Petitioner trusted him only because of his role as a priest; and excursions to the clubhouse began and ended at the Church. Fr. Cooper s employment status and role in the parish and the Archdiocese afforded him the access to Petitioner at the clubhouse. See also Hutchison v. Luddy, 742 A.2d 1052, 1062 (Pa. 1999); Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, 907 P.2d 358, 386 (Cal. 1995); Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, 814 P.2d 1341, (Cal. 1991). Even if there were a requirement that the abuse take place on premises, Petitioner has established

11 4 that fact as well. Acts of grooming that took place on church premises cannot be separated from the sex acts. They are part of the series of events that normalized and made possible the sex abuse, and have been recognized as such under Missouri law. See generally State v. Bullock, 153 S.W.3d 882, 885 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005); State v. Young, 139 S.W.3d 194, 197 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). II. There Is A Split In Authority On The Question Of Whether The First Amendment Is A Defense To Liability For A Religious Employer s Acts Of Negligence Respondent argues that there is no split in authority regarding whether the First Amendment is a bar to organizational liability on the theory that Missouri applies a profession-specific inquiry to negligence claims. This purportedly sets it apart from every other state. Resp. Opp. at 15. Respondent is incorrect for two reasons. First, Missouri recognizes many other categories of negligence, which are distinct from theories related to specific professions. Second, Missouri s inquiry into this question only differs semantically from other states. In fact, Missouri follows the same basic inquiry as other states. But in contradiction to most states, Missouri incorrectly has read the First Amendment as a bar to the application of negligence tort principles to religious organizations.

12 5 A majority of states recognizes that the application of neutral principles of tort law to religious institutions in clergy abuse cases does not violate the First Amendment. 1 But there is still need for this Court s guidance. Both state and federal courts are in disarray and require this Court s guidance in these important and numerous cases. Lower courts have noted that this area of First Amendment law is in flux and the United States Supreme Court cases offer very limited 1 Young v. Gelineau, No , 2007 WL , at *4 (R.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 20, 2007); Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson v. Morrison, 905 So. 2d 1213, 1240 (Miss. 2005); Berry v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of New York, Inc., 879 A.2d 1124, 1136 (N.H. 2005); Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 871 A.2d 1208, 1232 (Me. 2005); Olson v. First Church of Nazarene, 661 N.W.2d 254, 260 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003); Doe v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 268 F. Supp. 2d 139, 147 (D. Conn. 2003); Rashedi v. General Bd. of Church of Nazarene, 54 P.3d 349, 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002); Malicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 347, 364 (Fla. 2002); C.J.C. v. Corp. of the Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 985 P.2d 262, 277 (Wash. 1999); Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 196 F.3d 409, 431 (2d Cir. 1999); Smith v. Privette, 495 S.E.2d 395, 397 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998); Martinez v. Primera Asemblea de Dios, Inc., No , 1998 WL , at *3 (Tex. Ct. App. May 15, 1998); Smith v. O Connell, 986 F. Supp. 73, 80 (D.R.I. 1997); Amato v. Greenquist, 679 N.E.2d 446, 450 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997); F.G. v. MacDonell, 696 A.2d 697, (N.J. 1997); Bear Valley Church of Christ v. DeBose, 928 P.2d 1315, 1323 (Colo. 1996); Konkle v. Henson, 672 N.E.2d 450, 455 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996); Mrozka v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, 482 N.W.2d 806, 811 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992); Byrd v. Faber, 565 N.E.2d 584, 589 (Ohio 1991); Erickson v. Christenson, 781 P.2d 383, 386 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

13 6 guidance. Malicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 347, 357 n.7 (Fla. 2002) (quoting Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 780, 794 (Wis. 1995) (Abrahamson, J., dissenting)). See also Swanson v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 692 A.2d 441, (Me. 1997) (Lipez, J., dissenting). Respondent manufactures a requirement of a profession-specific inquiry to evade negligence liability for its tortious actions. It then argues that Missouri law substantially differs from other states, which according to Respondent, do not require an inquiry into church doctrine, polity, and administration. Resp. Opp. at 17. This argument is a diversion; there is nothing in tort law that mandates that the beliefs of an organization must be taken into account in order to determine whether it has acted negligently in placing employee pedophiles near children. The facts needed to prove the tort involve conduct, not belief. While state courts have the power to decide federal constitutional issues, they are nevertheless constrained to follow this Court s doctrine. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803); Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1995). The Supreme Court of Missouri previously recognized this principle in Kraus v. Board of Education, by confirming that state court judges in Missouri are bound by the supreme law of the land, as declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. 492 S.W.2d 783, 784 (Mo. 1973). They

14 7 may not use state law interpretation as a cover for misinterpreting the First Amendment. Respondent contends that Missouri s determination in Gibson v. Brewer 2 does not conflict with the former decisions of this Court. Resp. Opp. at 23. However, Respondent studiously ignores the principles set forth in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 604 (1979), which state that neutral principles of law can and should be applied to religious bodies. See also Employment Div., Dep t of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 885 (1990) (hereinafter Smith ). What Respondent casts as state choice in tort law is in fact constitutional misinterpretation. Respondent also asserts that this Court s decisions in Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976), and Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94 (1952), have uniformly held that civil inquiry into the church/clergy employment relationship is prohibited under the First Amendment. Resp. Opp. at 23. Respondent s contention is an overstatement, as this Court has not extended the principles espoused in those cases beyond ecclesiastical intrachurch disputes. See Malicki, 814 So. 2d at 363 (distinguishing clergy abuse cases from strictly ecclesiastical intrachurch disputes ). 2 Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. 1997).

15 8 Respondent also asserts that General Council on Fin. and Admin., United Methodist Church v. Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, 439 U.S (1998), only applies to purely secular disputes, as though religious organizations are immune from tort liability merely because they are religious. Resp. Opp. at 26. That is an indefensible position. In any event, the issue in this case involves the secular issue whether an organization has created the conditions leading to the sexual abuse of a child to whom it owes a duty. Thus, General Council is on point. Petitioner is bringing a third-party claim and invoking neutral, generally applicable tort laws to be applied to Respondent. Petitioner is not disputing the Church s internal beliefs, and he is not a member of the Church s clergy who willingly accepted employment on an implicit understanding that employment disputes were to be left solely to the church. See Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and Sch. v. EEOC, 556 U.S., 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012). The standards for negligence and negligent supervision and retention claims are civil law standards of conduct that do not require courts to interpret or apply religious law or dogma. 3 The Respondent s 3 Respondent contends that this Court cannot be the arbiter of the interpretation of state tort law. Resp. Opp. at 17. However Missouri s Court of Appeal s application of the First Amendment to this neutral negligence inquiry turns on a federal constitutional issue, over which this Court plainly has power. See 28 U.S.C (2006).

16 9 absolute right to believe whatever it chooses is not affected by the law governing conduct at stake in this case. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, (1940). This case asks this Court only to analyze conduct, which is properly subject to neutral laws of general applicability, even if it is religiously motivated or performed by religious actors. See Smith, 494 U.S. at ; Blakely v. Blakely, 83 S.W.3d 537, 547 (Mo. 2002); Oliver v. State Tax Comm n, 37 S.W.3d 243, 248 (Mo. 2001). As this Court has declared: Legislative power to punish subversive action cannot be doubted. If such action should be actually attempted by a cleric, neither his robe nor his pulpit would be a defense. Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 109. The same principle applies to religious institutions and organizations. The question of whether or not the Respondent was negligent, engaged in negligent supervision, or negligent retention, is assessed by analyzing the reasonableness of any employer in permitting a suspected child abuser to have access, through their employment, to more children. This Court is not being asked to determine what a reasonable diocese would do, but only what an ordinary, prudent employer whose employees are regularly in contact with children would do. 4 Thus, whether Respondent acted in conformity 4 As with any corporation, compliance with industry standards does not create immunity in tort. One of the best-known principles of tort law... is that compliance with [industry] custom is no defense to a tort claim. Rodi Yachts, Inc. v. National Marine, Inc., 984 F.2d 880, 888 (7th Cir. 1993).

17 10 with the standard set by other dioceses or the Church as a whole is not determinative, and this court need not establish a reasonably prudent diocese standard to determine whether Respondent violated an employer s duty of care to children. Respondent s opposition is further undermined by four recent cases asserting claims of negligence under Missouri law against religious institutions for child sexual abuse by clergy, where the courts have concluded that Gibson does not comport with decisions of this Court, that Gibson should not control, and the negligence claims should not be dismissed. These cases were decided by a Missouri Circuit Court and federal judges in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Perry v. Johnston, 654 F. Supp. 2d 996 (E.D. Mo. 2009); Goebel v. Johnston, No. 4:09-CV-106 CEJ, 2009 WL , at *4 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 21, 2009); Mary Doe SD v. The Salvation Army, No.4:07-CV-362 MLM, 2007 WL , at *6, (E.D. Mo. Sept. 20, 2007); John Doe CS v. Capuchin Franciscan Friars, 520 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (E.D. Mo. 2007); but see Perry v. Johnston, 641 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2011). The court below held that it was required to apply Gibson, 5 but, as the four cases above have found, a Missouri Supreme Court case that is at odds with this Court s interpretation of the First Amendment is not 5 See Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis, 347 S.W.3d 588 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

18 11 controlling precedent and the motion to dismiss the negligence, negligent supervision and retention claims should not have been granted. This Court s guidance on the First Amendment is sorely needed in Missouri as well as Utah and Wisconsin and those states not yet to address the issue. III. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church And School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Is Not Controlling, And Does Not Sweep As Broadly As Respondent Describes It This Court s recent decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 556 U.S., 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012), does not govern this case. The church s own brief to the Court urged that the application of a ministerial exception to a suit by or on behalf of a minister would not in any way bar criminal prosecutions for interfering with law enforcement investigations or other proceedings. Hosanna-Tabor, 556 U.S., 132 S. Ct. at 710. According to the Church, the [ministerial] exception applies only to suits by or on behalf of ministers themselves. Id. The decision is limited due to discrimination claims. This Court further narrowed the holding, to make clear that the ministerial exception likely would not apply in other types of disputes between ministers and their employers: The case before us is an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a

19 12 minister, challenging her church s decision to fire her. Today we hold only that the ministerial exception bars such a suit. We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers. There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise. Id. Respondent is relying on Hosanna-Tabor for a broad exception that this Court explicitly refused to grant. See Hosanna-Tabor, 556 U.S., 132 S. Ct. at 710; Resp. Opp. at 24. If the ministerial exception is not controlling in cases involving torts between the ministerial employee and employer, it is certainly irrelevant in cases between third-party tort victims like Petitioner and religious organizations like Respondent CONCLUSION Respondent has offered no persuasive reasons for this Court to deny certiorari. For the foregoing reasons and those in the Petition, Petitioner requests

20 13 this Court grant certiorari or, in the alternative, summarily reverse the decision below. Respectfully submitted, MARCI A. HAMILTON, ESQ. Counsel of Record 36 Timber Knoll Drive Washington Crossing, PA (215) REBECCA RANDLES, ESQ. RANDLES MATA & BROWN, LLC 406 W. 34th Street, Suite 623 Kansas City, MO (816) KENNETH M. CHACKES, ESQ. M. SUSAN CARLSON, ESQ. CHACKES, CARLSON & HALQUIST, LLP 230 S. Bemiston Avenue, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO JEFFREY R. ANDERSON, ESQ. PATRICK NOAKER, ESQ. JEFF ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, PA 366 Jackson Street, Suite 100 St. Paul, MN

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 --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JOHN DOE AP, versus Petitioner,

More information

Hearing Date/Time: 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY. No.

Hearing Date/Time: 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY. No. Hearing Date/Time: SUPERIOR COURT OF SHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY MARK R. ZMUDA, v. Plaintiff, CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE d.b.a. THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SEATTLE, and EASTSIDE CATHOLIC SCHOOL,

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC01-179 PARIENTE, J. JAN MALICKI, ST. DAVID CATHOLIC CHURCH, and THE ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, Petitioners, vs. JANE DOE, et al., Respondents. [March 14, 2002] We have for review

More information

Reply to Brief in Opposition, Melhorn v. Baltimore Washington Conf. of United Methodist Church

Reply to Brief in Opposition, Melhorn v. Baltimore Washington Conf. of United Methodist Church Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Law Supreme Court Briefs Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Law 2016 Reply to Brief in Opposition, Melhorn v. Baltimore Washington Conf. of United Methodist Church Leslie C. Griffin University

More information

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1995 STEPHEN MICHAEL DOWNS

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1995 STEPHEN MICHAEL DOWNS REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1803 September Term, 1995 STEPHEN MICHAEL DOWNS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF BALTIMORE, et al. Wilner, C.J., Harrell, Getty, James S. (retired,

More information

Employing the Section 5 Enforcement Power to Guarantee Religious Freedom in the State Courts

Employing the Section 5 Enforcement Power to Guarantee Religious Freedom in the State Courts Marquette Law Review Volume 85 Issue 4 Summer 2002 Article 6 Employing the Section 5 Enforcement Power to Guarantee Religious Freedom in the State Courts Ryan G. Lee Follow this and additional works at:

More information

Joseph v. Corp. of the President Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Joseph v. Corp. of the President Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Cited As of: August 21, 2018 1:08 PM Z Joseph v. Corp. of the President Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Southern Division January

More information

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 16 Filed: 07/19/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:57

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 16 Filed: 07/19/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:57 Case: 1:16-cv-02912 Document #: 16 Filed: 07/19/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:57 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION COLIN COLLETTE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )

More information

COMPLAINT. Plaintiff, for his causes of action against Defendant, allege that: PARTIES

COMPLAINT. Plaintiff, for his causes of action against Defendant, allege that: PARTIES Filed in Second Judicial District Court 10/2/2014 7:53:31 AM Ramsey County Civil, MN STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Personal Injury John Doe 115,

More information

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Petition er, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Petition er, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas FILED No. 08-592 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LAURA SCHUBERT, Petition er, V. PLEASANT GLADE ASSEMBLY OF GOD, REVEREND LLOYD A. MCCUTCHEN, ROD LINZAY, HOLLY LINZAY, SANDRA SMITH, BECKY BICKEL,

More information

Case 4:11-cv GAF Document 1 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 13

Case 4:11-cv GAF Document 1 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION Jane Doe 173, by and through her parents and guardians, Mother Doe 173 and Father Doe 173, Case No. vs. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT Shawn

More information

Case 3:13-cv B Document 12 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID 290 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case 3:13-cv B Document 12 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID 290 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION Case 3:13-cv-03813-B Document 12 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID 290 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION HIGHLAND PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH INC., Plaintiff, CIVIL

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

TOURO LAW CENTER. National Moot Court Competition in Law & Religion. In the. Supreme Court of the United States. April Term, No.

TOURO LAW CENTER. National Moot Court Competition in Law & Religion. In the. Supreme Court of the United States. April Term, No. TOURO LAW CENTER National Moot Court Competition in Law & Religion In the Supreme Court of the United States April Term, 2017 No. 415-2017 DAVID R. TURNER Plaintiff-Petitioner v. ST. FRANCIS CHURCH OF

More information

In The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-532 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States SGT. BILL BROWN, et al., v. Petitioners, CRYSTAL HENLEY, Respondent. On Petition For

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 13-1520 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, ET AL., Petitioners, v. THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF FORT WORTH, ET AL., Respondents. THE DIOCESE OF NORTHWEST TEXAS, ET AL., Petitioners,

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 14-171 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KENNETH TROTTER,

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-689 In the Supreme Court of the United States GARY BARTLETT, ET AL., v. Petitioners, DWIGHT STRICKLAND, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the North Carolina Supreme Court

More information

The Ministerial Exception and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Employment Discrimination and Religious Organizations

The Ministerial Exception and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Employment Discrimination and Religious Organizations The Ministerial Exception and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Employment Discrimination and Religious Organizations Cynthia Brougher Legislative Attorney March 27, 2012 CRS Report for Congress

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CASE NO. 2D L. T. CASE NO.11-CA (LEE)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CASE NO. 2D L. T. CASE NO.11-CA (LEE) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CHRIS WILSON, : : Appellant, : : vs. : : BISHOP VEROT CATHOLIC HIGH : SCHOOL, INC., FRANK J. : DEWANE, individually and as Bishop

More information

APPENDIX D STATE PERPETUITIES STATUTES

APPENDIX D STATE PERPETUITIES STATUTES APPENDIX D STATE PERPETUITIES STATUTES 218 STATE PERPETUITIES STATUTES State Citation PERMITS PERPETUAL TRUSTS Alaska Alaska Stat. 34.27.051, 34.27.100 Delaware 25 Del. C. 503 District of Columbia D.C.

More information

STATUTES OF REPOSE. Presented by 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders.

STATUTES OF REPOSE. Presented by 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders. STATUTES OF Know your obligation as a builder. Educating yourself on your state s statutes of repose can help protect your business in the event of a defect. Presented by 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty on behalf

More information

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Case 1:08-cv-00347-JTC Document 6-2 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ERIC E. HOYLE, Plaintiff, go Civil Action No.: 08-CV-347C FREDERICK DIMOND, ROBERT

More information

In The Supreme Court Of The United States

In The Supreme Court Of The United States No. 14-95 In The Supreme Court Of The United States PATRICK GLEBE, SUPERINTENDENT STAFFORD CREEK CORRECTIONS CENTER, v. PETITIONER, JOSHUA JAMES FROST, RESPONDENT. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

More information

APPENDIX C STATE UNIFORM TRUST CODE STATUTES

APPENDIX C STATE UNIFORM TRUST CODE STATUTES APPENDIX C STATE UNIFORM TRUST CODE STATUTES 122 STATE STATE UNIFORM TRUST CODE STATUTES CITATION Alabama Ala. Code 19-3B-101 19-3B-1305 Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. 28-73-101 28-73-1106 District of Columbia

More information

Defending Audit-Malpractice Cases: The Audit-Interference Rule By James H. Bicks and Robert S. Hoff March 26, 2012

Defending Audit-Malpractice Cases: The Audit-Interference Rule By James H. Bicks and Robert S. Hoff March 26, 2012 ARTICLES Defending Audit-Malpractice Cases: The Audit-Interference Rule By James H. Bicks and Robert S. Hoff March 26, 2012 Getting a routine financial-statement audit is not the equivalent of buying an

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 15-8842 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BOBBY CHARLES PURCELL, Petitioner STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS REPLY BRIEF IN

More information

Elder Financial Abuse and State Mandatory Reporting Laws for Financial Institutions Prepared by CUNA s State Government Affairs

Elder Financial Abuse and State Mandatory Reporting Laws for Financial Institutions Prepared by CUNA s State Government Affairs Elder Financial Abuse and State Mandatory Reporting Laws for Financial Institutions Prepared by CUNA s State Government Affairs Overview Financial crimes and exploitation can involve the illegal or improper

More information

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, guilty pleas in 1996 accounted for 91

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, guilty pleas in 1996 accounted for 91 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office for Victims of Crime NOVEMBER 2002 Victim Input Into Plea Agreements LEGAL SERIES #7 BULLETIN Message From the Director Over the past three

More information

Who Pays for Delay? How Enforceable is a No Damage for Delay Clause?

Who Pays for Delay? How Enforceable is a No Damage for Delay Clause? Who Pays for Delay? How Enforceable is a No Damage for Delay Clause? Eugene Polyak Associate Fort Lauderdale, Florida T: 954.769.5335 E: gpolyak@smithcurrie.com Delays are an all too common occurrence

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 1 1 William A. Barton, OSB No. Kevin K. Strever, OSB No. BARTON & STREVER, P.C. P.O. Box 0 Newport, OR Telephone: (1) - Facsimile: (1) - E-Mail: bartonstrever@actionnet.net Jeffrey R. Anderson, MSB No.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Sup. Ct. Case No: SC vs. D.C.A. Case No: 3D Cir. Ct. Case No: CA

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Sup. Ct. Case No: SC vs. D.C.A. Case No: 3D Cir. Ct. Case No: CA YOLANDA G. MINAGORRI, Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA Sup. Ct. Case No: SC07-1171 vs. D.C.A. Case No: 3D06-3015 Cir. Ct. Case No: 00-293-CA ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, INC. Respondent. / PETITIONER

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

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 415-2017 In The Supreme Court of the United States April Term, 2017 DAVID R. TURNER, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. ST. FRANCIS CHURCH OF TOUROVIA CONFERENCE OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES, AND REVEREND DR. ROBERTA

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 17-1136 In The Supreme Court of the United States THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, et al., v. Petitioners, THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, et al., Respondents. On Petition For

More information

upreme { aurt a[ tate

upreme { aurt a[ tate No. 10-902 MAR 2 ~ 2off upreme { aurt a[ tate WALTER MCGILL, PETITIONER, V. GENERAL CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS AND THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, AN UNINCORPORATED

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 17-405 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- RAYMOND BYRD, v.

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION COMPLAINT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION COMPLAINT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION Darin Buckman, John Doe 595, Joshua Bollman, ) and Cynthia Yesko, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. ) Illinois Catholic Conference

More information

Chart 12.7: State Appellate Court Divisions (Cross-reference ALWD Rule 12.6(b)(2))

Chart 12.7: State Appellate Court Divisions (Cross-reference ALWD Rule 12.6(b)(2)) Chart 12.7: State Appellate Court (Cross-reference ALWD Rule 12.6(b)(2)) Alabama Divided Court of Civil Appeals Court of Criminal Appeals Alaska Not applicable Not applicable Arizona Divided** Court of

More information

No IN THE. CYAN, INC., et al., Petitioners, BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, et al., Respondents.

No IN THE. CYAN, INC., et al., Petitioners, BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, et al., Respondents. No. 15-1439 IN THE CYAN, INC., et al., v. Petitioners, BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of the State of California,

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 14-631 In the Supreme Court of the United States JUAN MANZANO, V. INDIANA, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Indiana REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER

More information

pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë=

pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë= No. 13-1379 IN THE pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë= ATHENA COSMETICS, INC., v. ALLERGAN, INC., Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for

More information

No On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS

No On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS FILED 2008 No. 08-17 OFFICE OF THE CLERK LAURA MERCIER, Petitioner, STATE OF OHIO, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS DAN M. KAHAN

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1540 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR HOME FOR THE AGED, DENVER, COLORADO, a Colorado non-profit corporation, LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR, BALTIMORE,

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 11-649 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RIO TINTO PLC AND RIO TINTO LIMITED, Petitioners, v. ALEXIS HOLYWEEK SAREI, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United

More information

GOD AND THE LAW: THE RELIGION CLAUSES OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION. George Mason University Law School Fall 2014

GOD AND THE LAW: THE RELIGION CLAUSES OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION. George Mason University Law School Fall 2014 George Mason University Law School Fall 2014 William H. Hurd Adjunct Professor william.hurd@troutmansanders.com Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of Religion or prohibiting the free

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL BROWN, SR., et al., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:15CV00831 ERW ) CITY OF FERGUSON, MISSOURI, et al., ) ) Defendants.

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 10- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JOHN MICHAEL COOKE, RON SWOR, AND THE INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF THE FOURSQUARE GOSPEL, Petitioners, v. TIM TUBRA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

More information

Teacher Tenure: Teacher Due Process Rights to Continued Employment

Teacher Tenure: Teacher Due Process Rights to Continued Employment Alabama legislated Three school Incompetency, insubordination, neglect of duty, immorality, failure to perform duties in a satisfactory manner, justifiable decrease in the number of teaching positions,

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States NO. 15-6 In the Supreme Court of the United States MEDYTOX SOLUTIONS, INC., SEAMUS LAGAN AND WILLIAM G. FORHAN, Petitioners, v. INVESTORSHUB.COM, INC., Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 16-1424 In the Supreme Court of the United States BRIAN FOSTER, PETITIONER, v. ROBERT L. TATUM ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT REPLY

More information

Laws Governing Data Security and Privacy U.S. Jurisdictions at a Glance UPDATED MARCH 30, 2015

Laws Governing Data Security and Privacy U.S. Jurisdictions at a Glance UPDATED MARCH 30, 2015 Laws Governing Data Security and Privacy U.S. Jurisdictions at a Glance UPDATED MARCH 30, 2015 State Statute Year Statute Alabama* Ala. Information Technology Policy 685-00 (Applicable to certain Executive

More information

No In The Supreme Court of the United States EFRAIN TAYLOR, On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland

No In The Supreme Court of the United States EFRAIN TAYLOR, On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland No. 16-467 In The Supreme Court of the United States EFRAIN TAYLOR, v. Petitioner, STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States 13-712 In the Supreme Court of the United States CLIFTON E. JACKSON AND CHRISTOPHER M. SCHARNITZSKE, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. Petitioners, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

More information

Statutes of Limitations for the 50 States (and the District of Columbia)

Statutes of Limitations for the 50 States (and the District of Columbia) s of Limitations in All 50 s Nolo.com Page 6 of 14 Updated September 18, 2015 The chart below contains common statutes of limitations for all 50 states, expressed in years. We provide this chart as a rough

More information

States Adopt Emancipation Day Deadline for Individual Returns; Some Opt Against Allowing Delay for Corporate Returns in 2012

States Adopt Emancipation Day Deadline for Individual Returns; Some Opt Against Allowing Delay for Corporate Returns in 2012 Source: Weekly State Tax Report: News Archive > 2012 > 03/16/2012 > Perspective > States Adopt Deadline for Individual Returns; Some Opt Against Allowing Delay for Corporate Returns in 2012 2012 TM-WSTR

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. Argued: October 15, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 30, 2015

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. Argued: October 15, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 30, 2015 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

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 16-1386 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, PETITIONER, v. ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

More information

*** CAPITAL CASE *** No

*** CAPITAL CASE *** No *** CAPITAL CASE *** No. 16-9541 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JEFFREY CLARK, Petitioner, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT PETITION FOR

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-1370 In the Supreme Court of the United States LONG JOHN SILVER S, INC., v. ERIN COLE, ET AL. Petitioner, Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

More information

State By State Survey:

State By State Survey: Connecticut California Florida By Survey: Statutes of Limitations and Repose for Construction - Related Claims The Right Choice for Policyholders www.sdvlaw.com Statutes of Limitations and Repose 2 Statutes

More information

Case 4:04-cv CLS-HGD Document 203 Filed 08/06/2008 Page 1 of 5 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION

Case 4:04-cv CLS-HGD Document 203 Filed 08/06/2008 Page 1 of 5 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION Case 4:04-cv-00562-CLS-HGD Document 203 Filed 08/06/2008 Page 1 of 5 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION WENDELL GILLEY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. CV 04-PT-0562-CLS

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 18, 2015 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 18, 2015 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 18, 2015 Session MELANIE JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF MATTHEW H. v. SHAVONNA RACHELLE WINDHAM, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-613 In the Supreme Court of the United States D.P. ON BEHALF OF E.P., D.P., AND K.P.; AND L.P. ON BEHALF OF E.P., D.P., AND K.P., Petitioners, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, Respondent.

More information

CA CALIFORNIA. Ala. Code 10-2B (2009) [Transferred, effective January 1, 2011, to 10A ] No monetary penalties listed.

CA CALIFORNIA. Ala. Code 10-2B (2009) [Transferred, effective January 1, 2011, to 10A ] No monetary penalties listed. AL ALABAMA Ala. Code 10-2B-15.02 (2009) [Transferred, effective January 1, 2011, to 10A-2-15.02.] No monetary penalties listed. May invalidate in-state contracts made by unqualified foreign corporations.

More information

RESPONDENT S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

RESPONDENT S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Warden Terry Carlson, Petitioner, v. Orlando Manuel Bobadilla, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 415-2017 National Moot Court Competition in Law & Religion TOURO COLLEGE JACOB D. FUCHSBERG LAW CENTER IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DAVID R. TURNER, Petitioners, v. ST. FRANCIS CHURCH

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION KELLEY et al v. MED-1 SOLUTIONS, LLC et al Doc. 58 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION BRIAN J. KELLEY, DENISE D. BOYD, YVONNE S. EMOUS and BETTIE M. HOUSLEY,

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

NO IN THE. GARRY IOFFE, Petitioner, SKOKIE MOTOR SALES, INC., doing business as Sherman Dodge, Respondent. PETITIONER S REPLY

NO IN THE. GARRY IOFFE, Petitioner, SKOKIE MOTOR SALES, INC., doing business as Sherman Dodge, Respondent. PETITIONER S REPLY NO. 05-735 IN THE GARRY IOFFE, Petitioner, v. SKOKIE MOTOR SALES, INC., doing business as Sherman Dodge, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ) ) ) S. Ct. Civ. No On Petition for Extraordinary Writ Considered and Filed: January 22, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ) ) ) S. Ct. Civ. No On Petition for Extraordinary Writ Considered and Filed: January 22, 2009 For Publication IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS IN RE: JULIO A. BRADY, Petitioner. Re: Super. Ct. Civ. No. 342/2008 On Petition for Extraordinary Writ Considered and Filed: January 22, 2009

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 13-449 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States THE FALLS CHURCH, Petitioner, v. THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN In re: ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE, Debtor. Case No. 11-20059-svk Chapter 11 Hon. Susan V. Kelley SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT

More information

F COMMON PLEAS COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION. - r,'jijqca COUNTY MOTION TO DENY v. DEFENDANTS JOSEPH H.

F COMMON PLEAS COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION. - r,'jijqca COUNTY MOTION TO DENY v. DEFENDANTS JOSEPH H. IN C=T 1005 AUG -9 A c~ 3 4 ROSIE ANDUJAR, et al. F COMMON PLEAS COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION 'DLO OF FUERST CASE NO. : 05-CV-565095 Plaintiffs, ~ ERK OF COURTS JUDGE STUART FRIEDMAN - r,'jijqca COUNTY

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 17-209 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KRISTA ANN MUCCIO,

More information

Laws Governing Data Security and Privacy U.S. Jurisdictions at a Glance

Laws Governing Data Security and Privacy U.S. Jurisdictions at a Glance Laws Governing Security and Privacy U.S. Jurisdictions at a Glance State Statute Year Statute Adopted or Significantly Revised Alabama* ALA. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY 685-00 (applicable to certain

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 13-323 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States JOSE ALBERTO PEREZ-GUERRERO, v. Petitioner, ERIC H. HOLDER, U.S. Attorney General,

More information

No IN THE E urt JOHN CRANE INC., THOMAS E ATWELL, JR., EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS E ATWELL, DECEASED,

No IN THE E urt JOHN CRANE INC., THOMAS E ATWELL, JR., EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS E ATWELL, DECEASED, No. 10-272 IN THE E urt JOHN CRANE INC., Petitioner, THOMAS E ATWELL, JR., EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS E ATWELL, DECEASED, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE TO THE SUPERIOR COURT

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 10-553 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL, Petitioner, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND CHERYL PERICH, Respondents. On Writ

More information

State of New Hampshire Rockingham County Superior Court

State of New Hampshire Rockingham County Superior Court State of New Hampshire Rockingham County Superior Court SARASWATI MANDIRAM, INC. and PANDIT RAMADHEEN RAMSAMOOJ v. Rock.Super.Ct..No.07-C-392 G&G, LLC and G&G Epping, LLC MOTION TO PRESERVE STATUS QUO

More information

No. 07,1500 IN THE. TIMOTHY SULLIVAN and LAWRENCE E. DANSINGER, Petitioners, CITY OF AUGUSTA, Respondent.

No. 07,1500 IN THE. TIMOTHY SULLIVAN and LAWRENCE E. DANSINGER, Petitioners, CITY OF AUGUSTA, Respondent. No. 07,1500 IN THE FILED OpI=:IC~.OF THE CLERK ~ ~M~"~ d6"~rt, US. TIMOTHY SULLIVAN and LAWRENCE E. DANSINGER, Petitioners, CITY OF AUGUSTA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

More information

Case 4:10-cv Document 40 Filed in TXSD on 06/07/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Case 4:10-cv Document 40 Filed in TXSD on 06/07/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Case 4:10-cv-00171 Document 40 Filed in TXSD on 06/07/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION LONE STAR NATIONAL BANK, N.A., et al., CASE NO. 10cv00171

More information

1. Filing Procedure Other Than Original Lawsuit. a. Judgments Registered

1. Filing Procedure Other Than Original Lawsuit. a. Judgments Registered 1. Filing Procedure Other Than Original Lawsuit a. Judgments Registered Royal Extrusions Ltd. v. Continental Window and Glass Corp., 812 N.E.2d 554, 349 Ill.App.3d 642 (2004): Canadian company obtained

More information

In The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-1039 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PLANNED PARENTHOOD

More information

FIFTY STATES AND D.C. SURVEY OF LAWS THAT AUTHORIZE OR RECOGNIZE PRIVATE CITIZEN-INITIATED INVESTIGATION AND/OR PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES

FIFTY STATES AND D.C. SURVEY OF LAWS THAT AUTHORIZE OR RECOGNIZE PRIVATE CITIZEN-INITIATED INVESTIGATION AND/OR PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES FIFTY STATES AND D.C. SURVEY OF LAWS THAT AUTHORIZE OR RECOGNIZE PRIVATE CITIZEN-INITIATED INVESTIGATION AND/OR PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES The National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI) makes no

More information

APPENDIX STATE BANS ON DEBTORS PRISONS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE DEBT

APPENDIX STATE BANS ON DEBTORS PRISONS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE DEBT APPENDIX STATE BANS ON DEBTORS PRISONS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE DEBT This Appendix identifies and locates the critical language of each of the forty-one current state constitutional bans on debtors prisons.

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-13 In The Supreme Court of the United States BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Petitioner, v. NANCY GILL, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 16 1495 In the Supreme Court of the United States CITY OF HAYS, KANSAS, PETITIONER v. MATTHEW JACK DWIGHT VOGT ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 16, 2005 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 16, 2005 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 16, 2005 Session DEMPSEY AUSLEY v. FERRELL SHAW, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumner County No. 22970-C C. L. Rogers, Judge No.

More information

STATE PRESCRIPTION MONITORING STATUTES AND REGULATIONS LIST

STATE PRESCRIPTION MONITORING STATUTES AND REGULATIONS LIST STATE PRESCRIPTION MONITORING STATUTES AND REGULATIONS LIST Research Current through June 2014. This project was supported by Grant No. G1399ONDCP03A, awarded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

More information

State Prescription Monitoring Program Statutes and Regulations List

State Prescription Monitoring Program Statutes and Regulations List State Prescription Monitoring Program Statutes and Regulations List 1 Research Current through May 2016. This project was supported by Grant No. G1599ONDCP03A, awarded by the Office of National Drug Control

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 13-449 In the Supreme Court of the United States THE FALLS CHURCH, PETITIONER v. THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF

More information

Docket No. 24,833 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 2006-NMCA-039, 139 N.M. 252, 131 P.3d 102 February 6, 2006, Filed

Docket No. 24,833 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 2006-NMCA-039, 139 N.M. 252, 131 P.3d 102 February 6, 2006, Filed 1 CELNIK V. CONGREGATION B'NAI ISRAEL, 2006-NMCA-039, 139 N.M. 252, 131 P.3d 102 RABBI ISAAC CELNIK and PEGGY CELNIK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CONGREGATION B'NAI ISRAEL, a New Mexico, non-profit corporation,

More information

~in t~e D~rem~ fenrt of t~e i~niteb Dtatee

~in t~e D~rem~ fenrt of t~e i~niteb Dtatee No. 09-1425 ~in t~e D~rem~ fenrt of t~e i~niteb Dtatee NEW YORK,. PETITIONER, U. DARRELL WILLIAMS, EFRAIN HERNANDEZ, CRAIG LEWIS, AND EDWIN RODRIGUI~Z, RESPONDENTS. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE. In Re: ) ) Chapter 13 Hyegu Cho and ) Case No.: Jen Chinkyung Cho, ) ) Debtors.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE. In Re: ) ) Chapter 13 Hyegu Cho and ) Case No.: Jen Chinkyung Cho, ) ) Debtors. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE In Re: ) ) Chapter 13 Hyegu Cho and ) Case No.: 15-20638 Jen Chinkyung Cho, ) ) Debtors. ) ) AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF DECISION 1 I. INTRODUCTION. This matter

More information

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. STATE OF MARYLAND, Petitioner, v. ALONZO JAY KING, JR., Respondent.

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. STATE OF MARYLAND, Petitioner, v. ALONZO JAY KING, JR., Respondent. No. 12-207 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF MARYLAND, Petitioner, v. ALONZO JAY KING, JR., Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland REPLY BRIEF

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-761 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States POM WONDERFUL LLC, v. Petitioner, THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 22, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D17-1517 Lower Tribunal No. 16-31938 Asset Recovery

More information