DOCSLIB.ORG

The Minnesota Court of Appeals Standards of Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Minnesota Court of Appeals Standards of Review THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS STANDARDS OF REVIEW UPDATED AUGUST 2020 INTRODUCTION When deciding a case, the first task of an appellate court is to identify the applicable standard of review. The standard of review defines the manner in which each issue is reviewed, delineates the boundaries of appellate argument, and often determines the outcome on appeal. Accordingly, the Minnesota Court of Appeals conscientiously identifies and applies a specific standard of review to each issue before the court. The most persuasive appellate briefs explicitly state the applicable standard of review at the beginning of each issue and then apply it. This outline is intended as a tool for finding and applying various standards of review. Although this manual contains many standards of review, the cases set forth herein are not meant to provide the definitive standard of review for every appeal. Further research may be necessary, depending on the facts and issues on appeal. This manual does not address the scope of review, which concerns the extent to which specific questions or decisions may be raised on appeal. This outline was originally proposed by Justice Peter Popovich, the first Chief Judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals and later Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. It has been updated periodically, under the supervision of other chief judges and with the efforts of law clerks and staff of the court. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. CIVIL – GENERAL ............................................................................................................... 1 A. IN GENERAL .................................................................................................................. 1 1. Jurisdiction and Justiciability ........................................................................................... 1 2. General Standards of Review ........................................................................................... 1 a. Questions of Law ........................................................................................................ 1 b. Mixed Questions of Law and Fact .............................................................................. 2 c. Questions of Fact ........................................................................................................ 2 d. Equitable Determinations............................................................................................ 2 3. Rules of Construction ...................................................................................................... 3 a. Constitution ................................................................................................................. 3 b. Common Law.............................................................................................................. 3 c. Statutes ........................................................................................................................ 3 (1) Constitutionality of Statutes .................................................................................. 3 (2) Interpretation/Construction and Application of Statutes ....................................... 3 (3) Statutes of Limitations/Repose ............................................................................. 4 d. Rules of Procedure ...................................................................................................... 4 e. Municipal Ordinances ................................................................................................. 4 (1) Interpretation of Municipal Ordinances ................................................................ 4 (2) Preemption of Ordinance ...................................................................................... 5 f. Contracts ..................................................................................................................... 5 (1) In General .............................................................................................................. 5 (2) Ambiguity Determination ..................................................................................... 5 (3) Specific Types of Contracts .................................................................................. 6 (a) Employment Contracts ...................................................................................... 6 (b) Settlement Agreements ...................................................................................... 6 (c) Insurance Contracts (See Section IV(A) at 57.) ................................................ 6 B. PRETRIAL MATTERS ................................................................................................... 6 1. Service of Process ............................................................................................................ 6 i 2. Amendment of Pleadings – Generally ............................................................................. 6 3. Amendment of Pleadings – Punitive Damages ................................................................ 7 4. Discovery Issues .............................................................................................................. 7 5. Intervention of Parties/Interpleader ................................................................................. 7 6. Recusal and Removal of Judges ...................................................................................... 8 7. Disqualification of Counsel ............................................................................................. 8 8. Claim Preclusion and Issue Preclusion ............................................................................ 8 9. Motion for Continuance ................................................................................................... 8 10. Temporary Injunctions and Restraining Orders ............................................................... 8 11. Class Certification ............................................................................................................ 9 12. Governmental Immunity .................................................................................................. 9 C. PRETRIAL JUDGMENTS .............................................................................................. 9 1. Default Judgment and Motions to Vacate ........................................................................ 9 2. Dismissal of Actions ........................................................................................................ 9 a. Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) –Failure to State a Claim ................................................... 9 b. Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.03 – Judgment on the Pleadings ............................................... 10 c. Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.01-.02 ........................................................................................ 10 d. Other Bases for Dismissal ......................................................................................... 10 3. Summary Judgment ....................................................................................................... 11 a. Scope of Review ....................................................................................................... 11 b. Review of Certification Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02 ............................................ 11 c. Standard of Review ................................................................................................... 11 d. Equitable Issues ........................................................................................................ 12 e. Affirmance on Other Grounds .................................................................................. 12 D. TRIAL MATTERS ........................................................................................................ 12 1. Evidentiary Issues .......................................................................................................... 12 a. Admission and Exclusion of Evidence ..................................................................... 12 b. Foundation for Evidence ........................................................................................... 13 c. Novel Scientific Evidence ......................................................................................... 13 2. Witnesses ....................................................................................................................... 13 a. Examination of Witnesses......................................................................................... 13 ii b. Lay Witnesses ........................................................................................................... 14 c. Expert-Witness Testimony........................................................................................ 14 3. Presenting Questions to the Jury .................................................................................... 15 a. Framing Special-Verdict Questions .......................................................................... 15 b. Submission of Equitable Claims ............................................................................... 15 4. Directed Verdict, now known as Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL). (See Section I(F)(2) at 22.) ................................................................................................................. 15 5. Jury Instructions ............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Supreme Court's Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage in United States V. Windsor and Hollingsworth V. Perry: Analysis and Implications, Introduction
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 64 Issue 3 Article 6 2014 The Supreme Court's Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry: Analysis and Implications, Introduction Jonathan L. Entin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan L. Entin, The Supreme Court's Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry: Analysis and Implications, Introduction, 64 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 823 (2014) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol64/iss3/6 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 64·Issue 3·2014 — Symposium — The Supreme Court’s Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry: Analysis and Implications INTRODUCTION Jonathan L. Entin† For many years, gay rights advocates focused primarily on overturning sodomy laws. The Supreme Court initially took a skeptical view of those efforts. In 1976, the Court summarily affirmed a ruling that upheld Virginia’s sodomy law.1 And a decade later, in Bowers v. Hardwick,2 the Court not only rejected a constitutional challenge to Georgia’s sodomy law but ridiculed the claim.3 That precedent lasted less than two decades before being overruled by Lawrence v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Divergence of Standards of Conduct and Standards of Review in Corporate Law
    Fordham Law Review Volume 62 Issue 3 Article 1 1993 The Divergence of Standards of Conduct and Standards of Review in Corporate Law Melvin Aron Eisenberg Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Melvin Aron Eisenberg, The Divergence of Standards of Conduct and Standards of Review in Corporate Law, 62 Fordham L. Rev. 437 (1993). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol62/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Divergence of Standards of Conduct and Standards of Review in Corporate Law Cover Page Footnote This Article is based on the Robert E. Levine Distinguished Lecture which I gave at Fordham Law School in 1993. I thank Joe Hinsey, Meir Dan-Cohen, and a number of my colleagues who attended a colloquium at which I presented an earlier version of this Article, for their valuable comments. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol62/iss3/1 ARTICLES THE DIVERGENCE OF STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW IN CORPORATE LAW MELVIN ARON EISENBERG * In this Article; ProfessorEisenberg examines how and why standardsof conduct and standards of review diverge in corporate law. Professor Eisenberg analyzes the relevant standardsof conduct and review that apply in a number of corporate law contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Question Doctrine: Justiciability and the Separation of Powers
    The Political Question Doctrine: Justiciability and the Separation of Powers Jared P. Cole Legislative Attorney December 23, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43834 The Political Question Doctrine: Justiciability and the Separation of Powers Summary Article III of the Constitution restricts the jurisdiction of federal courts to deciding actual “Cases” and “Controversies.” The Supreme Court has articulated several “justiciability” doctrines emanating from Article III that restrict when federal courts will adjudicate disputes. One justiciability concept is the political question doctrine, according to which federal courts will not adjudicate certain controversies because their resolution is more proper within the political branches. Because of the potential implications for the separation of powers when courts decline to adjudicate certain issues, application of the political question doctrine has sparked controversy. Because there is no precise test for when a court should find a political question, however, understanding exactly when the doctrine applies can be difficult. The doctrine’s origins can be traced to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison; but its modern application stems from Baker v. Carr, which provides six independent factors that can present political questions. These factors encompass both constitutional and prudential considerations, but the Court has not clearly explained how they are to be applied. Further, commentators have disagreed about the doctrine’s foundation: some see political questions as limited to constitutional grants of authority to a coordinate branch of government, while others see the doctrine as a tool for courts to avoid adjudicating an issue best resolved outside of the judicial branch. Supreme Court case law after Baker fails to resolve the matter.
    [Show full text]
  • OPINION and DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; GAIL J
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTIN M. PERRY; SANDRA B. STIER; PAUL T. KATAMI; JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, 1569 1570 PERRY v. BROWN HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, Intervenor-Defendant, and DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; GAIL J. No. 10-16696 KNIGHT; MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ; D.C. No. MARK A. JANSSON; 3:09-cv-02292- PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM-YES ON 8, VRW A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants. KRISTIN M. PERRY; SANDRA B. STIER; PAUL T. KATAMI; JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; PERRY v. BROWN 1571 LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; DEAN C.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Standard of Review Decisions
    RECENT STANDARD OF REVIEW DECISIONS Hugh C. Griffin Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC 200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3300 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Phone: (312) 267-6234 Fax: (312) 345-9608 Email: [email protected] Frye Motion Review – De Novo Plus. In In re Commitment of Simons, 213 Ill. 2d 523, 531 (2004), the court adopted a de novo “plus” standard of review for motions made under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), seeking to bar an expert’s opinion because it is not based on a generally accepted methodology or recognized scientific principles in the particular field in which the expert purports to testify. The trial court’s ruling on the Frye motion is reviewed de novo and the reviewing court may consider not only the trial court record, but also, where appropriate, sources outside the record including legal and scientific articles and court opinions from other jurisdictions. The decision as to whether the expert witness is qualified to testify remains reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard. Evidentiary And Instruction Rulings May Be Subject To De Novo Review While the trial court’s decision to admit or refuse to admit evidence or to give or refuse to give an instruction is normally reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard, the standard of review is de novo if the lower court’s ruling is based on a principle of law or case decisions. See Nolan v. Weil-McLain, 233 Ill. 2d 416, 429 (2009): “Because the lower courts’ exclusion of evidence of decedent’s other exposures to asbestos was based upon their interpretation of existing case law, the question presented is one of law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Separation of Powers Doctrine: an Overview of Its Rationale and Application
    Order Code RL30249 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The Separation of Powers Doctrine: An Overview of its Rationale and Application June 23, 1999 (name redacted) Legislative Attorney American Law Division Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress ABSTRACT This report discusses the philosophical underpinnings, constitutional provisions, and judicial application of the separation of powers doctrine. In the United States, the doctrine has evolved to entail the identification and division of three distinct governmental functions, which are to be exercised by separate branches of government, classified as legislative, executive, and judicial. The goal of this separation is to promote governmental efficiency and prevent the excessive accumulation of power by any single branch. This has been accomplished through a hybrid doctrine comprised of the separation of powers principle and the notion of checks and balances. This structure results in a governmental system which is independent in certain respects and interdependent in others. The Separation of Powers Doctrine: An Overview of its Rationale and Application Summary As delineated in the Constitution, the separation of powers doctrine represents the belief that government consists of three basic and distinct functions, each of which must be exercised by a different branch of government, so as to avoid the arbitrary exercise of power by any single ruling body. This concept was directly espoused in the writings of Montesquieu, who declared that “when the executive
    [Show full text]
  • Rationalizing Rational Basis Review
    Copyright 2017 by Todd Shaw Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 112, No. 3 RATIONALIZING RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW Todd W. Shaw ABSTRACT—As a government attorney defending economic legislation from a constitutional challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment—How would you rate your chances of success? Surely excellent. After all, hornbook constitutional law requires only the assembly of a flimsy underlying factual record for economic legislation to pass rational basis review. But the recent uptick in courts questioning the credibility of legislative records might give pause to your optimism. As a growing body of scholarship has identified, the Supreme Court and federal courts of appeals increasingly invalidate laws under rational basis review despite the presence of an otherwise constitutionally sufficient legislative record. Under this “credibility-questioning” rational basis review, courts both ignore post hoc rationales that would legitimate a government interest and scrutinize the fit between the challenged statute’s means and ends. Nevertheless, recent scholarship has overlooked why courts have, and should, engage in credibility-questioning rational basis review, particularly of economic legislation. This Note proposes an answer: Courts should apply credibility- questioning rational basis review to economic legislation that (1) impedes liberty interests central to personhood, (2) burdens politically unpopular minority groups, or (3) benefits concentrated interest groups at the expense of diffuse majorities. AUTHOR—J.D. candidate, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, 2018; B.A., Oklahoma State University, 2012. For helpful comments and conversation, thanks to Professors Steven G. Calabresi and Leonard S. Rubinowitz, George F. Will, Jentry Lanza, Sheridan Caldwell, Connor Madden, Patrick Sullivan, and Arielle W.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Standards of Review
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 48 Issue 1 Fall 2016 Article 6 2016 Changing Standards of Review Jeffrey C. Dobbins Follow this and additional works at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jeffrey C. Dobbins, Changing Standards of Review, 48 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 205 (). Available at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol48/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized editor of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 21_DOBBINS_DOCUMENT4 (205-251).DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 1/23/17 9:44 AM Changing Standards of Review Jeffrey C. Dobbins* Do standards of review matter? On the one hand, judges insist that they do, and appellate practitioners know that they ignore standards of review at their peril. On the other hand, it is not unusual to find judges and academics who concede that there is not much difference between the many standards of review, and that the articulation of the standard may not make much of a difference in reversal rates. To test the question, researchers would ideally take a set of cases, have a court decide them under one standard of review, and then, while avoiding any bias from deciding the same cases twice, have the same court decide the cases under a different standard. Though this is not a practical experiment, recent legal history offers examples in which legislative and judicial decisions have altered the standard of review for particular types of cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
    i No. 19-7 In the Supreme Court of the United States SEILA LAW LLC, Petitioner, v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER TODD F. GAZIANO OLIVER J. DUNFORD* Pacific Legal Foundation *Counsel of Record 3100 Clarendon Blvd., Pacific Legal Foundation Suite 610 930 G Street Arlington, VA 22201 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (202) 888-6881 Phone: (916) 419-7111 Email: TGazi- Facsimile: (916) 419-7747 [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the vesting of legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency led by a single direc- tor who cannot be removed except for cause, violates the separation of powers. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED .............................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................. ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................ iv IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE .................................. 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................... 2 ARGUMENT ................................................................ 10 I. THE CFPB JUSTIFIES CONCERNS ABOUT CREEPING ENCROACHMENTS .......................... 10 II. “THE EXECUTIVE POWER IS VESTED IN “A” PRESIDENT WHO “SHALL TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED” ................................. 13 A. The President—and Only the President— Is Authorized and Obligated To “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” ............ 14 B. To “Take Care” That the Laws Be Faithfully Executed, the President Must Have Agents—Executive-Branch “Officers of the United States”—Whose Offices Are Lodged in the Executive Branch ............. 15 1. The Constitution Contemplates Presidential Assistants ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Spirit Airlines V. DOT.Pdf
    USCA Case #11-1219 Document #1385164 Filed: 07/24/2012 Page 1 of 32 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 7, 2012 Decided July 24, 2012 No. 11-1219 SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., ET AL., PETITIONER SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., INTERVENOR v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RESPONDENT AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRAVEL AGENTS, INC., INTERVENOR Consolidated with 11-1222 On Petitions for Review of Final Rules of the U.S. Department of Transportation David M. Kirstein argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Joanne W. Young. M. Roy Goldberg and Robert W. Kneisley were on the briefs for intervenor Southwest Airlines Co. in support of petitioners. USCA Case #11-1219 Document #1385164 Filed: 07/24/2012 Page 2 of 32 2 Bert W. Rein and Roger H. Miksad were on the brief for amicus curiae International Air Transport Association in support of petitioners and intervenor. Andrew B. Steinberg and Jeffrey S. DeVore were on the brief for amicus curiae Air Transport Association of America, Inc. in support of petitioners. Robert P. Silverberg entered an appearance. Daniel Tenny, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Michael S. Raab, Attorney, Paul M. Geier, Assistant General Counsel for Litigation, U.S. Department of Transportation, Timothy H. Goodman, Senior Trial Attorney, and Blane Workie, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings. Dale C. Andrews was on the brief for amicus curiae Interactive Travel Services Association in support of respondent.
    [Show full text]
  • 2003 As Despite Budget Challenges and Other Judicial Branch with the Transfer of Our Judges and Court Personnel Constraints
    A Message From the Chief Justice The Minnesota Judicial Branch children with advocates in court ¶ Continuing the transformation of the enjoyed many milestones in 2003 as despite budget challenges and other Judicial Branch with the transfer of our judges and court personnel constraints. the Second (Ramsey County) and continue to focus on four strategic Fourth (Hennepin County) judicial ¶ Seeing concrete results from the areas: Access to Justice, Childrens districts from county to state funding. work of the Childrens Justice Justice, Technology, and Public Trust Initiative, the countrys first But we do not intend to rest on these and Confidence. These milestones statewide reform of the child accomplishments. The Judicial include: protection system. Branch continues to search for new ¶ Launching the Minnesota Court opportunities to better serve the public, Information System (MNCIS) in three more effectively target the problems counties and preparing to roll out that bring people into court in the first the system statewide. MNCIS will place, and use our budget as link court records, improving efficiently as ever. information sharing among courts The budget challenges faced by the and law enforcement agencies. state in 2003 have impacted the ¶ Reviewing initial data collected judiciary as well. Yet, we remain statewide that will help us assess committed to and focused on our racial disparities in the court system overriding responsibility our so we can work to eliminate them. constitutionally prescribed mission of We also marked the 10th resolving the more than 2 million anniversary of the judiciarys work disputes brought to our courts each toward erasing racial bias in our year.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL REPORT a Message from the Chief Justice
    2003 ANNUAL REPORT A Message From the Chief Justice The Minnesota Judicial Branch children with advocates in court ¶ Continuing the transformation of the enjoyed many milestones in 2003 as despite budget challenges and other Judicial Branch with the transfer of our judges and court personnel constraints. the Second (Ramsey County) and continue to focus on four strategic Fourth (Hennepin County) judicial ¶ Seeing concrete results from the areas: Access to Justice, Childrens districts from county to state funding. work of the Childrens Justice Justice, Technology, and Public Trust Initiative, the countrys first But we do not intend to rest on these and Confidence. These milestones statewide reform of the child accomplishments. The Judicial include: protection system. Branch continues to search for new ¶ Launching the Minnesota Court opportunities to better serve the public, Information System (MNCIS) in three more effectively target the problems counties and preparing to roll out that bring people into court in the first the system statewide. MNCIS will place, and use our budget as link court records, improving efficiently as ever. information sharing among courts The budget challenges faced by the and law enforcement agencies. state in 2003 have impacted the ¶ Reviewing initial data collected judiciary as well. Yet, we remain statewide that will help us assess committed to and focused on our racial disparities in the court system overriding responsibility our so we can work to eliminate them. constitutionally prescribed mission of We also marked the 10th resolving the more than 2 million anniversary of the judiciarys work disputes brought to our courts each toward erasing racial bias in our year.
    [Show full text]