Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 52 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
|
|
- Anabel Thomas
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 52 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW (ACORN, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-951 v. (Hon. Nora Barry Fischer TOM CORBETT, Attorney General, Electronically filed Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Defendant Corbett s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 49, which seeks to dismiss plaintiffs claims that 25 Pa. C.S is unconstitutional as applied under the First Amendment, 1 is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute to be facial or as applied. As the Supreme Court recently explained in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges is not so well defined that it has some automatic effect or that it must always control the pleadings and disposition in every case involving a constitutional challenge. 2 Rather, the distinction goes to the breadth of the remedy employed by the Court, not what must 1 Doc. 49 (emphasis added; see also Defendant Corbett s Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 50 (hereafter Corbett Brief at 2, 7. 2 U.S.,, 130 S.Ct. 876, 893 (2010.
2 Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 52 Filed 08/16/10 Page 2 of 11 be pleaded in a complaint. 3 Although Plaintiffs alleged in their Amended Complaint that 25 Pa. C.S violates the First Amendment both on its face and as applied, these are not two separate and distinct claims. All that Plaintiffs must allege is that the statute violates their First Amendment rights. It is then up to the Court to determine whether 1713 must be struck down in its entirety, or whether it can be construed more narrowly to prohibit its application only to certain facts. Like in every case that has considered a challenge to similar laws restricting election-related petitioning and registration activities, the issue is whether 1713 is unconstitutional. Whether the challenge is considered facial or as applied is largely irrelevant, especially at this pleading stage of the proceedings. 4 I. Plaintiffs As Applied Challenge Is Not a Separate Legal Claim, but a Framework for Analyzing their First Amendment Claim, and Thus Defendant s Motion Does Not Actually Move to Dismiss Any of Plaintiffs Claims. Whether a challenge is facial or as applied frames the evidence that the Court should consider on a particular constitutional test, like strict scrutiny for content-based discrimination, overbreadth, vagueness, etc., and affects the equitable relief the Court grants. A facial attack tests a law s constitutionality based on its text alone and does not consider the facts or circumstances of a particular case. 5 An as-applied attack, in contrast, does not contend that a law is unconstitutional as written but that its application to a particular person under particular 3 Id. 4 Citizens United, U.S. at, 130 S. Ct. at United States v. Marcavage, 609 U.S. 264, 273 (2010 (citation omitted. 2
3 Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 52 Filed 08/16/10 Page 3 of 11 circumstances deprived that person of a constitutional right. 6 There is certainly nothing impermissible about arguing them in the alternative or together as a hybrid. 7 But these analytical frameworks should not be confused with the underlying substantive constitutional claims. The Citizens United majority cites a Harvard Law Review article, by Professor Richard Fallon, 8 that recognizes the confusion and helps to dispel it: Both within the Supreme Court and among scholarly commentators, a debate rages over when litigants should be able to challenge statutes as facially invalid, rather than merely invalid as applied. To a large extent, this debate reflects mistaken assumptions. There is no single distinctive category of facial, as opposed to as-applied, litigation. All challenges to statutes arise when a litigant claims that a statute cannot be enforced against her. In the course of as-applied litigation, rulings of facial invalidity sometimes occur, but they do not reflect trans-substantive rules governing a purported general category of facial challenges. Rather, rulings that a statute is facially (or partly invalid are the consequence of the particular doctrinal tests that courts apply to resolve particular cases. Some doctrinal tests call for statutes to be tested on their faces, whereas others do not. Accordingly, debates about the permissibility of facial challenges should be recast as debates about the substantive tests that should be applied to enforce particular constitutional provisions. 9 In other words, [f]acial challenges are not sharply categorically distinct from as-applied challenges to the validity of statutes Id. (Citation omitted. 7 Id. (Citation omitted. 8 See Fallon, As-Applied and Facial Challenges and Third-Party Standing, 113 Harv. L. Rev (2000 (hereafter Fallon. The Court had cited this article previously, see Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 168 (2007; Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 610 (2004, as have many lower courts. 9 Fallon, supra, at Fallon explains this further: [T]here is no single distinctive category of facial, as opposed to as-applied, litigation. Rather, all challenges to statutes arise when a particular litigant claims that a statute 3
4 Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 52 Filed 08/16/10 Page 4 of 11 The doctrinal tests of constitutional validity raised by Plaintiffs in this case are that 1713 violates the First Amendment because it is not closely tailored to a compelling government interest, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and violates due-process-notice precepts. The Court will apply the well-developed body of law that has emerged for these respective doctrines. The issue of whether the analysis is facial or as applied will be irrelevant, except to frame how the Court should considers the statute, i.e., by looking just at the text in the facial challenge or considering the history and potential application for the as-applied challenge. Either way, the question for the Court will be the same, namely, whether the statute violates the First and/or Fourteenth Amendments under any of these doctrinal tests. The Supreme Court, in Citizens United, recently suggested that the two analytical models are used largely to shape the breadth of the remedy employed by the Court. 11 For instance, in this case there are essentially two possible applications that can be fairly derived from the plain language of the statute, which reads as follows: A person may not give, solicit or accept cannot be enforced against her. In ruling on such challenges, courts employ doctrinal tests of constitutional validity, such as purpose tests, suspect-content tests inquiring whether a regulation is closely tailored to a compelling governmental interest, and so forth. And in applying such tests to resolve particular claims, courts often engage in reasoning indicating that a statute is invalid in whole or in part, and not merely as applied. In this sense, facial challenges undoubtedly occur, and they are important. Nonetheless, it is more misleading than informative to suggest that facial challenges constitute a distinct category of constitutional litigation. Rather, facial challenges and invalidations are best conceptualized as incidents or outgrowths of as-applied litigation. Id. Id. at 1324 (note omitted. 11 Citizens United, U.S. at, 130 S. Ct. at 893. Fallon explains that all challenges are as applied, and that facial invalidation results in broader remedies holding that more and typically all applications of the law are unconstitutional. See Fallon at
5 Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 52 Filed 08/16/10 Page 5 of 11 payment or financial incentive to obtain a voter registration if the payment or incentive is based upon the number of registrations or applications obtained. The crucial issue is the interpretation of based upon. One possibility is that the statute applies just to per-card remuneration, e.g., five dollars for every registration application turned in. The other interpretation is broader, namely, that any financial incentive, even performance standards, is ultimately based upon the number of registrations or applications obtained, and thus violates the statute. Under the latter interpretation, discharging employees because they consistently have failed to meet a performance goal violates the statute. In resolving the constitutional challenge, the Court could rule broadly and declare that both applications are unconstitutional, which would effectively strike the entire statute. According to Fallon, this would be termed facial invalidation. Or the Court could rule more narrowly that the per-card restriction is constitutional but the ban on productivity standards is not. The result would be that the statute is only partly unconstitutional, i.e., as applied to Plaintiffs, who have not and do not expect to rely on a percard-compensation system. This would be termed an as-applied ruling. But, as in Citizens United, that is not an issue that needs to be determined at the pleading stage, but one that the Court can manage when it determines the breadth of any appropriate remedy. The proof that the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges is largely irrelevant to the Court s decision whether 1713 violates the First and/or Fourteenth Amendments can be seen in the many cases ruling on similar challenges to laws that restrict an analogous election-related activity, payments to third-party-registration groups and petition circulators. Courts at every level, from the U.S. Supreme Court to the federal district courts, have resolved these challenges without even mentioning whether the challenges are facial or as 5
6 Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 52 Filed 08/16/10 Page 6 of 11 applied. 12 The sole focus is on whether the law violates one of the doctrinal tests of constitutional validity, typically under the First Amendment. The courts have then ruled either broadly, striking the entire statute, or more narrowly, invalidating it in part. In some cases the court calls the ruling as applied or facial, but in most of the cases there is simply no mention of the issue. In sum, whether the Plaintiffs have specified the analytical mode in their pleadings, or the Court ultimately elects to analyze the claims through the facial or as-applied prism, is irrelevant. Indeed, the matter need not even be pleaded in a complaint. 13 In Citizens United, the Supreme Court held that the parties could not stipulate to a dismissal of the facial claim while pressing an 12 See Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999 (assorted restrictions on petition circulators held to violate First Amendment with no discussion of whether challenge was facial or as applied; Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988 (court holds that ban on payment of petition circulators violates First Amendment with no discussion of whether challenge is facial or as applied; Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters, 518 F.3d 375 (6 th Cir (challenge to restrictions on financial remuneration for petition and registrationsignature gatherers found to violate First Amendment without any discussion of facial versus asapplied challenge; Person v. New York State Bd. Of Elections, 467 F.3d 141 (2d Cir (upholding ban on per-signature-payment statute without any discussion of whether challenge is facial or as applied; Project Vote v. Blackwell, 455 F.Supp.2d 694 (N.D. Ohio 2006 (court holds that statute burdening voter- registration efforts for paid canvassers violates First Amendment without mentioning whether facial or as-applied challenge; Idaho Coalition United for Bears v. Benarrusa, 234 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1165 (D. Idaho 2001 (First Amendment challenge sustained to, inter alia, payment restriction for petition circulars without any mention of facial versus as-applied challenges; On Our Terms 97 PAC v. Sec y of State of State of Maine, 101 F.Supp.2d 19 (D. Me (court holds that statute restricting payment to petition circulators violates First Amendment without distinguishing whether challenge is facial or as applied; Term Limits Leadership Council, Inc. v. Clark, 984 F.Supp. 470 (court holds law prohibiting persignature payment for petitions violates First Amendment without any distinction on facial versus as applied; Limit v. Maleng, 874 F.Supp (W.D. Wash (accord. 13 Citizens United, U.S. at, 130 S.Ct. at 893 (citation omitted ( [T]he distinction between facial and as-applied challenges is not so well defined that it has some automatic effect or that it must always control the pleadings and disposition in every case involving a constitutional challenge.. 6
7 Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 52 Filed 08/16/10 Page 7 of 11 as-applied claim because such a stipulation would divest the Court of discretion to devise an appropriate remedy. 14 If the First Amendment claim is properly before the court, as it was in Citizens United and as it is in this case, the court retains authority to consider and rule upon one or both arguments. 15 Therefore, the issue raised in Corbett s motion is more properly left to a brief about how to analyze Plaintiffs First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, not the dismissal of any substantive constitutional claims. And since Corbett does not contest Plaintiffs facial challenge, thereby conceding, at least at this stage, that a First Amendment claim is proper, he is not actually moving to dismiss any of Plaintiffs substantive claims. II. An As-applied Challenge Focuses More Narrowly on a Statute s Particular Application, but since 1713 Has Been and Fairly Can Be Applied to Plaintiffs, They Meet the Test of Standing. A separate issue interwoven in Corbett s argument is that Plaintiffs do not have standing to argue the as applied claim because Corbett has not personally taken any action, or threatened to taken any action, to enforce 25 Pa. C.S against [Plaintiffs]. Standing is, of course, a valid concern at all stages of the litigation, but once again Corbett s argument is based on a misunderstanding of the how the term as applied is used in this context. Standing requirements are relaxed in First Amendment cases raising facial and overbreadth challenges to laws restricting expression. 16 Facial challenges to overly broad 14 Id. at Id. at See Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947, (1984; Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 (1973; see also Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, (2004 (reaffirming viability of facial attacks and overbreadth challenges in free-speech cases. 7
8 Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 52 Filed 08/16/10 Page 8 of 11 statutes are allowed not primarily for the benefit of the litigant, but for the benefit of society to prevent the statute from chilling the First Amendment rights of other parties not before the court. 17 Even when a First Amendment challenge to the law could be brought by a person more directly affected by the restriction, there is the possibility that, rather than risk punishment for his conduct in challenging the statute, he will refrain from engaging further in protected activity. Society as a whole then would be the loser. 18 Consequently, an individual against whom no enforcement action has been taken can still challenge a regulation because [that regulation] also threatens others not before the court those who desire to engage in legally protected expression but who may refrain from doing so rather than risk prosecution or undertake to have the law declared partially invalid. 19 Therefore, Plaintiffs in this case clearly have standing to assert their facial challenge, which is likely the reason Corbett has expressly not moved to dismiss the facial challenge. Moreover, because the statute has been enforced against ACORN s employees, and a fair reading of the statute s plain language shows that it is susceptible to such an expansive interpretation, Plaintiffs have standing to mount an as-applied challenge. The fact that neither Corbett nor his office have directly prosecuted or threatened to prosecute the Plaintiffs under 17 Munson, 467 U.S. at 958; see also Peachlum v. City of York, 333 F.3d 429, 438 (3d Cir ( Standing is relaxed in First Amendment overbreadth and facial challenges not just because [the plaintiffs ] own rights of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the [ordinance s] very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression (quoting Broadrick, 413 U.S. at Munson, 467 U.S. at Peachlum, 333 F.3d at 438 (citations omitted (ellipses in original. 8
9 Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 52 Filed 08/16/10 Page 9 of does not negate Plaintiffs standing to litigate the as-applied challenge against Corbett. Nor does Corbett s disclaimer that he would not enforce the statute as broadly as Zapalla did against ACORN s employees insulate Corbett from suit. 20 One of the cases cited in Corbett s brief is on point. In The Pitt News v. Fisher, 21 the Pitt News brought a First Amendment challenge to a state statute that restricted the newspaper s ability to gather alcohol-related advertisements. The law was enforced by various parties, including the Pennsylvania State Police, but the Attorney General did not share that enforcement power. As a result of the statute s passage and the potential for enforcement, The Pitt News lost advertising revenue because would-be advertisers were chilled by the mere possibility of prosecution. 22 The Pitt News sued the Attorney General, the head of the Liquor Control Board, and the director of State Police Liquor Enforcement Unit, even though none of these individuals had enforced the law against the Pitt News. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals held that the Pitt News had standing to press its First Amendment challenge to the statute against all three defendants, including the Attorney General. 23 The question was not whether the Attorney General had ever prosecuted or threatened to prosecute The Pitt News. 20 The fact that Corbett does not believe ACORN has violated the law is of no moment. The Supreme Court this past term held, in United States v. Stevens, that a government official cannot invoke prosecutorial discretion to claim he will enforce the law more restrictively than the plain language provides and thereby save the statute from being declared unconstitutional: the First Amendment protects against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige. We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly. U.S. at, 130 S.Ct. at 1591 (citation omitted F.3d 354 (3d Cir Id. at Id. at
10 Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 52 Filed 08/16/10 Page 10 of 11 The question, which the Court of Appeals answered affirmatively, was whether The Pitt News had alleged an injury caused by the statute and whether the injury was fairly traceable to the statute and redressible by the court so as to satisfy the rules of standing. 24 In subsequently declaring the statute unconstitutional, the Court of Appeals never once mentioned whether the newspaper s challenge was facial or as applied. 25 It simply ruled, despite the absence of any actual prosecution against the newspaper, that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to the Pitt News. 26 Similarly, in this case the Plaintiffs have alleged that the statute can be fairly read, and indeed was so read by one District Attorney, to subject them to criminal prosecution over their use of performance standards to manage paid employees conducting voter-registration campaigns. The injury is not Corbett s overt threats of prosecution, which admittedly he has not made, but as in The Pitt News it is the very existence of the statute itself, and its actual and potential enforcement, that causes the injury. Therefore, Plaintiffs have adequately pled an injury caused by the statute to satisfy standing requirements for the as-applied challenge. As in Citizens United, it is likely to be the breadth of the remedy in striking down the statute that will affect whether the analysis is characterized as facial or as applied. 24 Id. at See The Pitt News v. Pappert, 379 F.3d 96 (3d Cir Id. at
11 Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 52 Filed 08/16/10 Page 11 of 11 CONCLUSION This Court should deny Defendant s motion for judgment on the pleadings because it fails to articulate a valid legal argument for dismissing any of Plaintiffs three constitutional claims. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Brian Mellor /s/brian Mellor Brian Mellor Admitted Pro Hac Vice MA Bar Number ( bmellor@projectvote.org /s/ Teresa James Teresa James Admitted Pro Hac Vice OH Bar Number ( tjames@projectvote.org PROJECT VOTE th Street SE Washington, DC /s/ Witold J. Walczak Witold J. Walczak PA ID No.: vwalczak@aclupgh.org /s/ Sara J. Rose Sara J. Rose PA ID No.: srose@aclupgh.org AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES FOUNDATION OF PENNSYLVANIA 313 Atwood Street Pittsburgh, PA ( /s/ Claudia Davidson Claudia Davidson OFFICES OF CLAUDIA DAVIDSON PA ID No.: Law and Finance Building Pittsburgh, PA ( (p cdavidson@choiceon .com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS August 16,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00951-NBF Document 12 Filed 09/22/09 Page 1 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW (ACORN),
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00951-NBF Document 81 Filed 05/13/11 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW (ACORN);
More informationNo IN THE. JOHN R. COPELAND, et al., Petitioners, v. CYRUS R. VANCE, JR., et al., Respondents.
No. 18-918 IN THE JOHN R. COPELAND, et al., Petitioners, v. CYRUS R. VANCE, JR., et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit MOTION BY CONSTITUTIONAL
More information342 F3d 1073 Idaho Coalition United for Bears, a Political Committee v. Cenarrussa. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
342 F3d 1073 Idaho Coalition United for Bears, a Political Committee v. Cenarrussa Idaho Coalition United for Bears, a political committee; Lynn Fritchman, an individual; Don Morgan, an individual; Ronald
More informationS17A0086. MAJOR v. THE STATE. We granted this interlocutory appeal to address whether the former 1
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: May 15, 2017 S17A0086. MAJOR v. THE STATE. HUNSTEIN, Justice. We granted this interlocutory appeal to address whether the former 1 version of OCGA 16-11-37 (a),
More informationBRIEF IN OPPOSITION FOR RESPONDENT HARRY NISKA
No. 14-443 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States BONN CLAYTON, Petitioner, v. HARRY NISKA, et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 3 Filed: 09/26/13 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al. Plaintiffs, Case
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1999) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 97 930 VICTORIA BUCKLEY, SECRETARY OF STATE OF COLORADO, PETITIONER v. AMERICAN CONSTITU- TIONAL LAW FOUNDATION, INC., ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 99-3434 Initiative & Referendum Institute; * John Michael; Ralph Muecke; * Progressive Campaigns; Americans * for Sound Public Policy; US Term
More informationPart Description 1 10 pages 2 Exhibit Consent Decree 3 Affidavit Knedler 4 Affidavit Harris 5 Affidavit Earl 6 Affidavit Redpath
Libertarian Party of Ohio et al v. Husted, Docket No. 2:13-cv-00953 (S.D. Ohio Sept 25, 2013), Court Docket Part Description 1 10 pages 2 Exhibit Consent Decree 3 Affidavit Knedler 4 Affidavit Harris 5
More informationMOTION TO DECLARE [TEEN SEX STATUTE] UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED AND TO DISMISS THE CHARGES AGAINST THE CHILD
STATE OF DISTRICT COURT DIVISION JUVENILE BRANCH IN THE MATTER OF, A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN CASE NO.: MOTION TO DECLARE [TEEN SEX STATUTE] UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED AND TO DISMISS THE CHARGES
More informationPRELIMINARY INJUNCTION and TRO REQUESTED /
Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/18 Page: 1 of 20 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION WILLIAM SCHMITT, JR., CHAD THOMPSON, AND DEBBIE BLEWITT,
More informationCase 3:17-cv SB Document 43 Filed 09/18/17 Page 1 of 12
Case 3:17-cv-00652-SB Document 43 Filed 09/18/17 Page 1 of 12 ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM Attorney General CHRISTINA L. BEATTY-WALTERS #981634 Senior Assistant Attorney General Telephone: (971) 673-1880 Fax: (971)
More informationCase 1:10-cv RFC -CSO Document 1 Filed 10/28/10 Page 1 of 29
Case 1:10-cv-00135-RFC -CSO Document 1 Filed 10/28/10 Page 1 of 29 John E. Bloomquist James E. Brown DONEY CROWLEY BLOOMQUIST PAYNE UDA P.C. 44 West 6 th Avenue, Suite 200 P.O. Box 1185 Helena, MT 59624
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 17-209 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KRISTA ANN MUCCIO,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION. JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST v. Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp OPINION AND ORDER
Kilroy v. Husted Doc. 70 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOHN P. KILROY, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:11-cv-145 JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST v. Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:12-cv-00042-WKW-CSC Document 64 Filed 07/19/12 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION JILL STEIN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. )
More informationCase 2:11-cv DB Document 46 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-00416-DB Document 46 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION BUSHCO, a Utah Corp., COMPANIONS, L.L.C., and TT II, Inc., Plaintiffs,
More informationREPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PLAINTIFFS TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC. and TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS LANDFILL, INC.
Case 1:11-cv-01070-LY Document 52 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC. and TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS LANDFILL, INC.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION. Plaintiff,
Case 6:14-cv-00002-DLC-RKS Document 1 Filed 01/08/14 Page 1 of 16 Anita Y. Milanovich (Mt. No. 12176) THE BOPP LAW FIRM, PC 1627 West Main Street, Suite 294 Bozeman, MT 59715 Phone: (406) 589-6856 Email:
More informationCase 4:16-cv BRW Document 19 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION
Case 4:16-cv-00775-BRW Document 19 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MICHAEL ANDREW RODGERS and GLYNN DILBECK PLAINTIFFS VS. 4:16-CV-00775-BRW
More informationCase 5:10-cv M Document 7 Filed 11/09/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:10-cv-01186-M Document 7 Filed 11/09/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA MUNEER AWAD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-10-1186-M ) PAUL ZIRIAX,
More informationGOODING v. WILSON. 405 U.S. 518, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972).
"[T]he statute must be carefully drawn or be authoritatively construed to punish only unprotected speech and not be susceptible of application to protected expression." GOODING v. WILSON 405 U.S. 518,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Case No.
2:14-cv-11903-MFL-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 05/12/14 Pg 1 of 16 Pg ID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION EDERL EDNA MOORE, and TIARA WILLIS-PITTMAN, v.
More informationCourt of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-17-00366-CR NO. 09-17-00367-CR EX PARTE JOSEPH BOYD On Appeal from the 1A District Court Tyler County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 13,067 and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-00-DGC Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 0 0 WO Arizona Green Party, an Arizona political party, et al., vs. Plaintiffs, Ken Bennett, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Case No. 101 CV 556 OF OHIO FOUNDATION, INC. Plaintiff, JUDGE KATHLEEN O'MALLEY v. ROBERT ASHBROOK,
More informationATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box Olympia WA
Rob McKenna 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box 40100 Olympia WA 98504-0100 Chair, Municipal Research Council 2601 Fourth A venue #800 Seattle, WA 98121-1280 Dear Chairman Hinkle: You recently inquired as
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 ANTON EWING, v. SQM US, INC. et al.,, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendants. Case No.: :1-CV--CAB-JLB ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc.
More informationBy: Mariana Gaxiola-Viss 1. Before the year 2002 corporations were free to sponsor any
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 Violates Free Speech When Applied to Issue-Advocacy Advertisements: Fed. Election Comm n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007). By: Mariana Gaxiola-Viss
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION
Terrell v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 1 1 JULIUS TERRELL, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., Defendant. CASE NO. C1-JLR
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHN DOE #1-5 and MARY DOE, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 12-11194 RICHARD SNYDER and COL. KRISTE ETUE, Defendants. / OPINION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA MICHAEL SALMAN in Custody at the Maricopa County Jail, PETITIONER, v. JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Sheriff of Maricopa County, in his official capacity, Case No. Prisoner No. P884174
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
Case 1:14-cv-00102-JMS-BMK Document 19 Filed 04/21/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 392 MARR JONES & WANG A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP RICHARD M. RAND 2773-0 Pauahi Tower 1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1500
More informationCase 2:18-cv MCE-AC Document 17 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 11
Case :-cv-00-mce-ac Document Filed 0// Page of 0 LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Laurance Lee, State Bar No. 0 Elise Stokes, State Bar No. Sarah Ropelato, State Bar No. th Street Sacramento, CA Telephone:
More informationRandall Winslow v. P. Stevens
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-2-2015 Randall Winslow v. P. Stevens Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationResponses of the Christian Civic League of Maine, Inc. to Defendants First Set of Interrogatories
Case 1:06-cv-00614-LFO Document 26-5 Filed 04/21/2006 Page 1 of 10 United States District Court District of Columbia The Christian Civic League of Maine, Inc. 70 Sewall Street Augusta, ME 04330, Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:15-cv GLR Document 13 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. June 10, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-02170-GLR Document 13 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Chambers of 101 West Lombard Street George L. Russell, III Baltimore, Maryland 21201 United
More informationCase 3:09-cv IEG -BGS Document 94 Filed 08/12/10 Page 1 of 38. Plaintiffs, Defendant.
Case :0-cv-0-IEG -BGS Document Filed 0// Page of Gary D. Leasure (Cal. State Bar No. ) Law Office of Gary D. Leasure, APC High Bluff Drive, Suite San Diego, California Telephone: () -, Ext. Facsimile:
More informationCase 1:09-cv REB Document 35 Filed 10/22/09 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:09-cv-00022-REB Document 35 Filed 10/22/09 Page 1 of 11 LAWRENCE WASDEN ATTORNEY GENERAL BRIAN KANE, ISB #6264 Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General STEVEN L. OLSEN, ISB #3586 Chief of Civil Litigation
More informationAchieving Universal Voter Registration Through the Massachusetts Health Care Model: Analysis and Sample Statutory Language
The Center for Voting and Democracy 6930 Carroll Ave., Suite 610 Takoma Park, MD 20912 - (301) 270-4616 (301) 270 4133 (fax) info@fairvote.org www.fairvote.org Achieving Universal Voter Registration Through
More information215 E Street, NE / Washington, DC tel (202) / fax (202)
215 E Street, NE / Washington, DC 20002 tel (202) 736-2200 / fax (202) 736-2222 http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org February 27, 2013 Comments on the New York Attorney General s Proposed Regulations Regarding
More informationCase 2:16-cv DN Document 2 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 30
Case 2:16-cv-00038-DN Document 2 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 30 Marcus R. Mumford (12737) MUMFORD PC 405 South Main Street, Suite 975 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 428-2000 Email: mrm@mumfordpc.com
More informationArizona Free Enterprise Club s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett 131 S. Ct (2011)
Arizona Free Enterprise Club s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett 131 S. Ct. 2806 (2011) I. INTRODUCTION Arizona Free Enterprise Club s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 1 combined with McComish v. Bennett, brought
More informationNo Sn t~e ~uprem~ (~ourt of the i~tnit~l~
No. 09-154 Sn t~e ~uprem~ (~ourt of the i~tnit~l~ FILED ALIG 2 8 200 FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL LOBBYISTS, INC., a Florida Not for Profit Corporation; GUY M. SPEARMAN, III, a Natural Person; SPEARMAN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF HAWAII FOUNDATION LOIS K. PERRIN # 8065 P.O. Box 3410 Honolulu, Hawaii 96801 Telephone: (808) 522-5900 Facsimile: (808) 522-5909 Email: lperrin@acluhawaii.org Attorney
More informationCase 1:12-cv MCA-RHS Document 20 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:12-cv-00421-MCA-RHS Document 20 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO JOHN W. JACKSON and 2ND ) AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) )
More informationPlaintiffs, Defendants. INTRODUCTION. Defendant West St. Paul-Mendota Heights-Eagan Public Schools, Independent School
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Tiffini Flynn Forslund, et al., v. State of Minnesota, et al., Plaintiffs, Defendants. Case Type: Other Civil Court File No.
More informationNO IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. KELLY G. CANDAELE, et al., Respondents.
NO. 10-1136 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JONATHAN LOPEZ, v. Petitioner, KELLY G. CANDAELE, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
More informationCase: 3:09-cv wmc Document #: 35 Filed: 03/31/11 Page 1 of 13
Case: 3:09-cv-00767-wmc Document #: 35 Filed: 03/31/11 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN RANDY R. KOSCHNICK, v. Plaintiff, ORDER 09-cv-767-wmc GOVERNOR
More informationSECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW STATE ELECTION LAW MARTIN FLUMENBAUM - BRAD S. KARP P A U L, W E I S S, R I F K I N D, W H A R T O N & G A R R I S O N
P A U L, W E I S S, R I F K I N D, W H A R T O N & G A R R I S O N SECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW STATE ELECTION LAW MARTIN FLUMENBAUM - BRAD S. KARP PUBLISHED IN THE NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL NOVEMBER 2000 PAUL, WEISS,
More informationCase 2:06-cv LKK-GGH Document 96 Filed 02/09/2007 Page 1 of 11
Case :0-cv-0-LKK-GGH Document Filed 0/0/00 Page of 0 JOHN DOE, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NO. CIV. S-0- LKK/GGH Plaintiff, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of
More informationCase 3:05-cv JGC Document 38-1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-07309-JGC Document 38-1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, et al., : CASE NO. 3:05-CV-7309
More informationUNITED STATES COURT FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No Democratic National Committee, et al. Republican National Committee, et al.
UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 04-4186 Democratic National Committee, et al. v. Republican National Committee, et al. Ebony Malone, Intervenor Republican National Committee, Appellant On
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case 3:16-cv-00383-JPG-RJD Case 1:15-cv-01225-RC Document 22 21-1 Filed Filed 12/20/16 12/22/16 Page Page 1 of 11 1 of Page 11 ID #74 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
More information2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
751 F.Supp.2d 782 United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania. Brenda ENTERLINE, Plaintiff, v. POCONO MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:08 cv 1934. Dec. 11, 2008. MEMORANDUM A. RICHARD
More informationCase 2:17-cv MMB Document 34-2 Filed 04/26/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 217-cv-05137-MMB Document 34-2 Filed 04/26/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA William Penn School District; : Panther Valley School District; : The School District of Lancaster; : Greater Johnstown School District; : Wilkes-Barre Area School
More informationCase 1:16-cv LY Document 50 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:16-cv-00845-LY Document 50 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION DR. JENNIFER LYNN GLASS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:16-cv-845-LY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:12-cv GCM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:12-cv-00192-GCM NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION ) PARTY, AL PISANO, NORTH ) CAROLINA GREEN PARTY, and ) NICHOLAS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 2:16-cv-00442-WKW-SRW Document 112 Filed 06/11/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION HON. TOM PARKER, Associate Justice, Supreme Court
More informationState of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: v. Case No. 2007CF002386
State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2007CF002386 Terrell Jefferson, Defendant. Motion to Declare Sec. 948.02(1), Stats Unconstitutional as Applied
More informationSupport. ECF No. 16. On September 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed
Brown v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC et al Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division CLIFFORD A. BR019N, III, Plaintiff, V. ACTION NO: 2:16cv476 BIMBO
More informationCase 2:09-cv MCE -DAD Document 72 Filed 05/16/11 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
Case :0-cv-0-MCE -DAD Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 ADAM RICHARDS et al., v. Plaintiffs, COUNTY OF YOLO and YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF ED PRIETO, Defendants.
More informationCase 1:10-cv RJA Document 63 Filed 10/25/10 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:10-cv-00751-RJA Document 63 Filed 10/25/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE, INC., v. Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER 10-CV-751A
More informationIN 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 informationCase: 3:17-cv JJH Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/15/17 1 of 22. PageID #: 1
Case 317-cv-01713-JJH Doc # 1 Filed 08/15/17 1 of 22. PageID # 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION CHARLES PFLEGHAAR, and KATINA HOLLAND -vs- Plaintiffs, CITY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION THE OHIO ORGANIZING COLLABORATIVE, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:15-cv-01802 v. Judge Watson Magistrate Judge King
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 4:16cv501-RH/CAS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case 4:16-cv-00501-RH-CAS Document 29 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 12 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION JOHN DOE 1 et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationMontana Cannabis Industry Association v. State: Feeling the Effects of Medical Marijuana on Montana s Rational Basis Test
Montana Law Review Online Volume 76 Article 22 10-28-2015 Montana Cannabis Industry Association v. State: Feeling the Effects of Medical Marijuana on Montana s Rational Basis Test Luc Brodhead Alexander
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Rev. MARKEL HUTCHINS ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) CIVIL ACTION HON. NATHAN DEAL, Governor of the ) FILE NO. State of Georgia,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Brian Moore, et al, : : Plaintiffs : Case No. 2:08cv224 : v. : Judge Frost : Jennifer Brunner : Ohio Secretary of
More informationLEGAL SERVICES DIVISION OF LEGAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY STATE OF ALASKA
(907) 465-3867 or 465-2450 FAX (907) 465-2029 Mail Stop 31 01 LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION OF LEGAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY STATE OF ALASKA State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Deliveries
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,233 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. CITY OF HUTCHINSON, Appellee, TYSON SPEARS, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,233 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS CITY OF HUTCHINSON, Appellee, v. TYSON SPEARS, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court; TRISH
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STATE OF WASHINGTON; ROB MCKENNA, ATTORNEY GENERAL; SAM REED, SECRETARY OF STATE, v. Petitioners, WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY; CHRISTOPHER VANCE; BERTABELLE
More informationPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC. v. GONZALES
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC. v. GONZALES BLAKE MASON * In one of the most pivotal cases of the Fall 2006 Term, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
More informationH.R. 2093, Representative Meehan s Grassroots Lobbying Bill
MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: Interested Parties American Center for Law and Justice H.R. 2093, Representative Meehan s Grassroots Lobbying Bill DATE: May 11, 2007 Representative Martin T. Meehan (D-MA) has
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
4:18-cv-03073 Doc # 1 Filed: 05/29/18 Page 1 of 14 - Page ID # 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA KENT BERNBECK, and ) CASE NO. MICHAEL WARNER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) JOHN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-0-jat Document Filed Page of 0 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Dina Galassini, No. CV--0-PHX-JAT Plaintiff, ORDER v. Town of Fountain Hills, et al., Defendants.
More informationNOTICES. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY [OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 96-l]
NOTICES OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL [OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 96-l] Department of Public Welfare; Enforceability of Durational Residency and Citizenship Requirement of Act 1996-35 December 9, 1996 Honorable
More informationCase 2:12-cv Document 1 Filed 07/18/12 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1
Case 2:12-cv-03419 Document 1 Filed 07/18/12 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON MICHAEL CALLAGHAN, Plaintiff, v. Civil
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 18-766 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States TERESA BIERMAN, et al., v. Petitioners, MARK DAYTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, et al., Respondents. On Petition
More informationCase 2:12-cv RBS Document 2 Filed 02/06/12 Page 3 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS,
Case 2:12-cv-00556-RBS Document 2 Filed 02/06/12 Page 3 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA -----------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationIntroduction. REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZ. What do we have? What can you do?
Introduction REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZ. What do we have? An over broad standard Can effect any city Has far reaching consequences What can you do? Take safe steps, and Wait for the inevitable clarification.
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Shover, 2012-Ohio-3788.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 25944 Appellee v. SEAN E. SHOVER Appellant APPEAL
More informationCase: 4:18-cv Doc. #: 1 Filed: 01/02/18 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: 1
Case: 4:18-cv-00003 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 01/02/18 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION LAWRENCE WILLSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No
Case: 09-2227 Document: 00319762032 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2009 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 09-2227 CHUCK BALDWIN, DARRELL R. CASTLE, WESLEY THOMPSON, JAMES E. PANYARD,
More informationCase: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 12/23/13 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 781
Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 12/23/13 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 781 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 1:14-cv CMA Document 15 Filed 03/21/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
Case 1:14-cv-00809-CMA Document 15 Filed 03/21/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 14-cv-00809-CMA DEBRA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Plaintiffs, Case No.: VERIFIED COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT M. OWSIANY and EDWARD F. WISNESKI v. Plaintiffs, Case No.: THE CITY OF GREENSBURG, Defendant. VERIFIED COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION Plaintiff
More informationCase: 5:12-cv KKC Doc #: 37 Filed: 03/04/14 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 234
Case: 5:12-cv-00369-KKC Doc #: 37 Filed: 03/04/14 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 234 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON DAVID COYLE, individually and d/b/a
More informationCase: 2:14-cv ART-CJS Doc #: 46-1 Filed: 10/21/14 Page: 1 of 16 - Page ID#: 553
Case: 2:14-cv-00119-ART-CJS Doc #: 46-1 Filed: 10/21/14 Page: 1 of 16 - Page ID#: 553 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY COVINGTON DIVISION CIVIL ROBERT A. WINTER, ESQ. :
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-80213, 11/09/2017, ID: 10649704, DktEntry: 6-2, Page 1 of 15 Appeal No. 17 80213 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARLON H. CRYER, individually and on behalf of a class of
More informationv. ) Civil Action No
Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 34 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE and THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE,
More informationmust determine whether the regulated activity is within the scope of the right to keep and bear arms. 24 If so, there follows a
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SECOND AMENDMENT SEVENTH CIRCUIT HOLDS BAN ON FIRING RANGES UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 539 U. S. (2003) 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 information2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52187, *
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52187, * SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE and THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH; LUKE RAVENSTAHL, Mayor, City of Pittsburgh; MICHAEL HUSS, Director of Public
More informationQuestion: Answer: I. Severability
Question: When an amendment to the Florida constitution, which has been approved by voters, contains a section that is inconsistent with the rest of the amendment, how can the inconsistent section be legally
More informationCase 2:16-cv JCZ-JVM Document 6 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:16-cv-13733-JCZ-JVM Document 6 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA WAYNE ANDERSON CIVIL ACTION JENNIFER ANDERSON VERSUS NO. 2:16-cv-13733 JERRY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Harrisburg Division
Case 1:17-cv-00100-YK Document 23 Filed 03/21/17 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Harrisburg Division GREGORY J. HARTNETT, ELIZABETH M. GALASKA, ROBERT
More information