DOCSLIB.ORG

Professional Licensure General Disclosure Juris Doctor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Professional Licensure General Disclosure Juris Doctor Last Updated: 8/17/2020 Professional Licensure General Disclosure Juris Doctor In accordance with 34 C.F.R. §668.43, and in compliance with the requirements outlined in the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA) Manual, DePaul University provides the following disclosure related to the educational requirements for professional licensure and certification1. This disclosure is strictly limited to the University’s determination of whether its educational program, Juris Doctor, if successfully completed, would be sufficient to meet the educational licensure or certification requirements in a State for a licensed attorney.2 DePaul cannot provide verification of an individual’s ability to meet licensure or certification requirements unrelated to its educational programming. This disclosure does not provide any guarantee that any particular state licensure or certification entity will approve or deny your application. Furthermore, this disclosure does not account for changes in state law or regulation that may affect your application for licensure and occur after this disclosure has been made. Enrolled students and prospective students are strongly encouraged to contact their State’s licensure entity using the links provided to review all licensure and certification requirements imposed by their state(s) of choice. DePaul University has designed an educational program curriculum for a Juris Doctor, that if successfully completed is sufficient to meet the licensure and certification requirements for a licensed attorney in the following states3: STATE Licensure Board Contact Information Alabama Alabama State Bar https://admissions.alabar.org/home Alaska Alaska Bar Association https://alaskabar.org/ Arizona Supreme Court Committees on Examinations and https://www.azcourts.gov/cld/Attorney- Arizona Character & Fitness Admissions Arkansas State Board of Law https://www.arcourts.gov/administration/pro Arkansas Examiners fessional-programs/asble State Bar of California Office of California Admissions http://www.calbar.ca.gov/admissions Colorado Supreme Court Office of Colorado Attorney Admissions http://www.coloradosupremecourt.us/ Connecticut Bar Examining Connecticut Committee https://www.jud.ct.gov/CBEC/ Delaware Board of Bar Examiners of the http://www.courts.delaware.gov/bbe/ 1 The terms related to attorney licensure, including licensure and certification, among others, vary by state and your state may use different terms. 2 This determination is based on the educational and curricular requirements of each state for licensure (ie, excluding any special, temporary licensure that may be granted) and does not imply that other requirements for licensure do not exist or have been determined to have been met by this program. Each student should verify their particular situation with their intended state’s licensing entity. 3 If the State does not regulate/license attorneys, DePaul’s program has been determined to be sufficient for these purposes. Last Updated: 8/17/2020 Delaware Supreme Court Florida Florida Board of Bar Examiners http://www.floridabarexam.org/ Supreme Court of Georgia Office of Georgia Bar Admissions http://www.gabaradmissions.org/ Board of Examiners Supreme Court Hawaii of the State of Hawaii http://www.courts.state.hi.us/ Idaho Idaho State Bar http://www.isb.idaho.gov/ Illinois Board of Admissions to the Illinois Bar http://www.ilbaradmissions.org/ Office of Admissions & Continuing Indiana Education http://www.in.gov/judiciary/ace/ Iowa Iowa Board of Law Examiners http://www.iowacourts.gov/ Kansas Kansas Board of Law Examiners http://www.kscourts.org/ Kentucky Kentucky Office of Bar Admissions http://www.kyoba.org/ Louisiana Committee on Bar Louisiana Admissions http://www.lascba.org/ Maine Maine Board of Bar Examiners http://www.mainebarexaminers.org/ Maryland State Board of Law Maryland Examiners http://www.mdcourts.gov/ble Massachusetts Board of Bar https://www.mass.gov/orgs/massachusetts- Massachusetts Examiners board-of-bar-examiners Michigan Michigan Board of Law Examiners http://www.courts.mi.gov/ Minnesota State Board of Law Minnesota Examiners http://www.ble.mn.gov/ Mississippi Mississippi Board of Bar Admissions https://courts.ms.gov/baradmissions Missouri Missouri Board of Law Examiners http://www.mble.org/ Montana State Bar of Montana http://www.montanabar.org/ Nebraska Supreme Court Attorney http://www.supremecourt.nebraska.gov/attor Nebraska Services Division neys/admission-practice-law Nevada State Bar of Nevada http://www.nvbar.org/ New Hampshire Supreme Court New Hampshire Office of Bar Admissions http://www.courts.state.nh.us/nhbar New Jersey New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners http://www.njbarexams.org/ New Mexico Board of Bar New Mexico Examiners http://www.nmexam.org/ New York State Board of Law New York Examiners http://www.nybarexam.org/ Board of Law Examiners of the North Carolina State of North Carolina http://www.ncble.org/ North Dakota State Board of Law http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme- North Dakota Examiners court/committees/board-of-law-examiners Supreme Court of Ohio Office of Ohio Bar Admissions http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ Oklahoma Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners http://www.okbbe.com/ Oregon State Board of Bar Oregon Examiners http://www.osbar.org/ Pennsylvania Board of Law Pennsylvania Examiners http://www.pabarexam.org/ Rhode Island Rhode Island Supreme Court Board http://www.courts.ri.gov/ Last Updated: 8/17/2020 of Bar Examiners South Carolina Supreme Court South Carolina Board of Law Examiners http://www.sccourts.org/ South Dakota Board of Bar South Dakota Examiners https://ujs.sd.gov/ Tennessee Tennessee Board of Law Examiners http://www.tnble.org/ Texas Texas Board of Law Examiners http://www.ble.texas.gov/ Utah Utah State Bar http://www.utahbar.org/ http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/attorneys/a Vermont Office of Attorney Licensing dmission-vermont-bar Virginia Virginia Board of Bar Examiners http://www.barexam.virginia.gov/ Washington Washington State Bar Association http://www.wsba.org/ West Virginia Board of Law West Virginia Examiners http://www.courtswv.gov/ Wisconsin Wisconsin Board of Bar Examiners http://www.wicourts.gov/ Wyoming Wyoming Board of Law Examiners http://www.wyomingbar.org/ DePaul University has designed an educational program curriculum for a Juris Doctor, that if successfully completed is insufficient to meet the licensure and certification requirements for a licensed attorney in the following states: STATE Licensure Board Contact Information N/A N/A N/A After making reasonable efforts, and with research ongoing, DePaul University has not yet determined whether its educational program curriculum for a Juris Doctor, if successfully completed, is sufficient to meet the licensure and certification requirements for a licensed attorney in the following states4: STATE Licensure Board Contact Information N/A N/A N/A 4 This does not mean the educational program will not ultimately be approved by the state entity, or that licensure could not result from attending this program. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 50 State Survey(Longdoc)
    AGREEMENTS TO INDEMNIFY & GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: A Fifty State Survey WEINBERG WHEELER H U D G I N S G U N N & D I A L TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Alabama 4 Alaska 7 Arizona 12 Arkansas 15 California 19 Damages arising out of bodily injury or death to persons. 22 Damage to property. 22 Any other damage or expense arising under either (a) or (b). 22 Colorado 23 Connecticut 26 Delaware 29 Florida 32 Georgia 36 Hawaii 42 Idaho 45 Illinois 47 Indiana 52 Iowa 59 Kansas 65 Kentucky 68 Louisiana 69 Maine 72 Maryland 77 Massachusetts 81 Michigan 89 Minnesota 91 Mississippi 94 Missouri 97 Montana 100 Nebraska 104 Nevada 107 New Hampshire 109 New Jersey 111 New Mexico 115 New York 118 North Carolina 122 North Dakota 124 Ohio 126 Oklahoma 130 Oregon 132 Pennsylvania 139 Rhode Island 143 South Carolina 146 South Dakota 150 Tennessee 153 Texas 157 Utah 161 Vermont 165 Virginia 168 Washington 171 West Virginia 175 Wisconsin 177 Wyoming 180 INTRODUCTION Indemnity is compensation given to make another whole from a loss already sustained. It generally contemplates reimbursement by one person or entity of the entire amount of the loss or damage sustained by another. Indemnity takes two forms – common law and contractual. While this survey is limited to contractual indemnity, it is important to note that many states have looked to the law relating to common law indemnity in developing that state’s jurisprudence respecting contractual indemnity. Common law indemnity is the shifting of responsibility for damage or injury from one tortfeasor to another
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Courts
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. THE FUTURE OF '-. ARIZONA COURTS Report of ,..................................................... : .... THE COMMISSION ON THE COURTS : .... ; '. · \ REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE COURTS 1989 120983 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or pOlicies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by A r j z on a Snp..r.e.rne-c.uur.:./-'-___ to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner. Arizona Supreme Court COMMISSION ON THE COURTS 1314 North 3rd Street, Suite 330, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, (602) 255-2136 The Honorable Frank: X. Gordon, Jr. Chief Justice Arizona Supreme Court 201 West Wing, State Capitol Phoenix,Arizona85007 Dear Chief Justice Gordon: I am privileged to present to you the report of the Arizona Supreme Court's Commission on the Courts. This report reflects the action-oriented vision shared by the Executive Committee and the various Task Forces for shaping the direction of Arizona's courts into the next decade and beyond. We believe the evaluations and suggestions of the report reflect the need for a balance between continuity and adaptability in the judiciary; between the need for stability and a realistic appraisal of the changes necessary as we face a new century.
    [Show full text]
  • SUPREME COURT of ARIZONA En Banc ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No
    SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. WC-11-0001-IR IN RE GENERAL ADJUDICATION ) OF ALL RIGHTS TO USE WATER IN ) Maricopa County Superior THE GILA RIVER SYSTEM AND SOURCE ) Court Case Nos.: W-1, W-2, ) W-3 and W-4 ) (Consolidated) (Gila) IN RE GENERAL ADJUDICATION ) [Contested Case OF ALL RIGHTS TO USE WATER IN ) No. W1-104] THE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM ) AND SOURCE ) Apache County Superior ) Court Case No. 6417 (LCR) ) [Contested Case ) No. 6417-100] ) ) ) O P I N I O N __________________________________) Review from the Superior Court in Apache County and Maricopa County The Honorable Eddward P. Ballinger, Jr., Judge AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ THOMAS C. HORNE, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL Phoenix By Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Theresa M. Craig, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for the State of Arizona THE SPARKS LAW FIRM PC Scottsdale By Joe P. Sparks Laurel A. Herrmann Attorneys for the San Carlos Apache Tribe and Tonto Apache Tribe SALMON LEWIS & WELDON PLC Phoenix By M. Byron Lewis John B. Weldon, Jr. Mark A. McGinnis Attorneys for Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District and Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association SALMON LEWIS & WELDON PLC Phoenix By Paul R. Orme Attorney for Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District and Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage District SNELL & WILMER LLP Phoenix By L. William Staudenmaier, III Andrew M. Jacobs Attorneys for Arizona Public Service Company, Freeport- McMoran Corporation, Roosevelt Water Conservation District POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC Phoenix By Lucas J. Narducci Margaret LaBianca Attorneys for BHP Copper Inc. ENGELMAN BERGER PC Phoenix By William H.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures
    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court's Attack on Attorneys' Freedom of Expression: the Gentile V
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 43 Issue 4 Article 43 1993 The Supreme Court's Attack on Attorneys' Freedom of Expression: The Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada Decision Suzanne F. Day Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Suzanne F. Day, The Supreme Court's Attack on Attorneys' Freedom of Expression: The Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada Decision, 43 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 1347 (1993) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol43/iss4/43 This Note 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. THE SUPREME COURT'S AITACK ON ATTORNEYS' FREEDOM OF ExPRESSION: THE GENTILE v. STATE BAR OF NEVADA DECISION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............. ............ 1349 A. The Dilemma of the Defense Attorney ....... 1349 B. State Court Rules Restricting Attorney Communication with the Media ............. 1350 11. CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS RAISED BY RESTRICTING PRETRIAL PUBLICITY THROUGH CURBING THE SCOPE OF ATrORNEY SPEECH: THE FAIR TRIAL - FREE PRESS DEBATE ...... ........................ 1351 A. The Sheppard v. Maxwell Decision: The United States Supreme Court's Directive to Trial Court Judges ............................ 1352 B. The Conflicting First Amendment Rights of Attorneys, Sixth Amendment Rights of the Defendant, and the State and Public Interest in the Impartial Administration of Justice ........... 1355 1. What the Amendments Guarantee ......... 1355 2.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020-229 (Supreme Court)
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA ____________________________________ In the Matter of: ) ) DISPOSITION OF RESIDENTIAL ) Administrative Order EVICTION CASES RELATED TO THE ) No. 2020 - 229 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY ) (Replacing Administrative ) Order No. 2020-163) ____________________________________) Due to concern for the spread of COVID-19 in the general population, the Governor of the State of Arizona declared a statewide public health emergency on March 11, 2020. On March 27, 2020, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) into law. The CARES Act required a temporary moratorium on evictions from public housing, federally subsidized rental housing, and rental housing with federally-backed mortgages, as well as a ban on accrual during the moratorium of fees, penalties, and interest related to nonpayment of rent. While the CARES Act eviction moratorium has expired, certain tenant protections related to the accrual of fees, penalties, and interest on unpaid rent remain in effect. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an order entitled “Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19” effective September 4, 2020 through December 31, 2020 (CDC No. 2020-19654, 85 Fed. Reg. 55292 (Sept. 4, 2020)) (CDC order). This order prohibited a landlord from taking any action to evict for nonpayment of rent a residential tenant who provided the landlord a declaration under the order. The CDC order also provided: “Under 42 U.S.C. 243, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is authorized . to accept State and local assistance in the enforcement of Federal quarantine rules and regulations, including in the enforcement of this Order.” The Congress has passed and the President has signed into law the “Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021.” The Act extends the CDC moratorium through January 31, 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • 10-1001 Martinez V. Ryan (03/20/2012)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2011 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MARTINEZ v. RYAN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPART- MENT OF CORRECTIONS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 10–1001. Argued October 4, 2011—Decided March 20, 2012 Arizona prisoners may raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel only in state collateral proceedings, not on direct review. In petitioner Martinez’s first state collateral proceeding, his counsel did not raise such a claim. On federal habeas review with new counsel, Martinez argued that he received ineffective assistance both at trial and in his first state collateral proceeding. He also claimed that he had a constitutional right to an effective attorney in the collateral proceeding because it was the first place to raise his claim of ineffec- tive assistance at trial. The District Court denied the petition, find- ing that Arizona’s preclusion rule was an adequate and independent state-law ground barring federal review, and that under Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, the attorney’s errors in the postconviction proceeding did not qualify as cause to excuse the procedural default. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
    [Show full text]
  • State Court Organization, 1998 Conference of State Court Administrators, Court Statistics Committee
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics State Court Organization 1998 Victim-offender relationship in violent crimes (rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault) by sex of victim Courts and judges Judicial selection and service Judicial branch Appellate courts Trial courts The jury The sentencing context Court structure U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics State Court Organization 1998 By David B. Rottman Carol R. Flango Melissa T. Cantrell Randall Hansen Neil LaFountain A joint effort of Conference of State Court Administrators and National Center for State Courts June 2000, NCJ 178932 U.S Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director, BJS This Bureau of Justice Statistics report was prepared by the National Center for State Courts under the Supervision of Steven K. Smith and Marika F.X. Litras of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The project was supported by BJS grant number 98-BJ-CX-K002. Principle staff for the project at the National Center for State Courts were David B. Rottman, Ph.D., Carol R. Flango, Melissa T. Cantrell, Randall Hansen, and Neil LaFountain. Tom Hester and Carol DeFrances of BJS provided editorial review. Jayne Robinson administered final production. This report was made possible by the support and guidance of the Court Statistics Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. Please bring suggestions for information that should be included in future editions to the attention of the Director of the Court Statistics Project, National Center for State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8798.
    [Show full text]
  • Message from the President
    NEVADA LAWYER EDITORIAL BOARD Patricia D. Cafferata, Chair Scott McKenna Message from Michael T. Saunders, Chair-Elect Gregory R. Shannon Richard D. Williamson, Vice Chair Stephen F. Smith Mark A. Hinueber, Immediate Past Chair Beau Sterling Erin Barnett Kristen E. Simmons Hon. Robert J. Johnston Scott G. Wasserman the President Lisa Wong Lackland John Zimmerman Frank Flaherty, Esq., State Bar of Nevada President BOARD OF GOVERNORS President: Frank Flaherty, Carson City President Elect: Alan Lefebvre, Las Vegas DUES TALK Vice President: Elana Graham “I will not make any broad promises to you on Immediate Past President: Constance Akridge, Las Vegas behalf of the board, beyond stating that we do not anticipate a dues increase within the Paola Armeni, Las Vegas Mason Simons, Elko Elizabeth Brickfield, Las Vegas Hon. David Wall (Ret.), next few years and that the board and staff Laurence Digesti, Reno Las Vegas Eric Dobberstein, Las Vegas Ex-Officio will continue to work diligently to control costs Vernon (Gene) Leverty, Reno Interim Dean and to be smart with your dues dollars.” Paul Matteoni, Reno Nancy Rapoport, Ann Morgan, Reno UNLV Boyd School of Law Richard Pocker, Las Vegas Richard Trachok, Chair October always seems to be a good time to talk about money. At the last Bryan Scott, Las Vegas Board of Bar Examiners Richard Scotti, Las Vegas meeting of the Board of Governors (BOG), we spent some time discussing your licensing fees, typically referred to as “dues.” I am happy to report that STATE BAR STAFF the State Bar of Nevada is in good shape, fiscally and otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Job Board Network - Network Members
    Legal Job Board Network - Network Members • ACBA Job Board • Albuquerque Bar Association • American Health Law Association • Arizona Attorney Magazine Career Center • Association for Conflict Resolution • Atlanta Bar Association • Bar Association of Lehigh County • Bar Association of Montgomery County Maryland • BASF Career Center • Boston Bar Association • BPLA Career Center • California Alliance of Paralegal Associations • CBA Career Center • Clearwater Bar Association • Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association • DBA Career Center • DeKalb Bar Association • District of Columbia Bar Career Center • DuPage County Bar Association • Fayette County Bar Association • Grand Rapids Bar Association • Hennepin County Bar Association • Hillsborough County Bar Association • Illinois Chapter of National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys • Illinois Defense Counsel Career Center • Illinois State Bar Association Career Center • ISBA Career Center • Jacksonville Bar Association • Johnson County Bar Association • Kansas Bar Association • KBA Career Center • King County Bar Association • LA Legal Jobs • LAPA Career Center • Lawyers Without Borders (LWOB) • Macomb County Bar Association • Maine State Bar Association • Maricopa County Bar Association • Maryland Association of Paralegals • Milwaukee Bar Association • Minnesota Paralegal Association • Mississippi Bar Job Board • MSBA Career Center • NALS Career Center • Nashville Bar Association • National Capital Area Paralegal Association (NCAPA) • National Creditors Bar Association • NCBA Career Center • NCBA
    [Show full text]
  • 07-542 Arizona V. Gant (4/21/2009)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2008 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ARIZONA v. GANT CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA No. 07–542. Argued October 7, 2008—Decided April 21, 2009 Respondent Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in a patrol car before officers searched his car and found cocaine in a jacket pocket. The Arizona trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, and he was convicted of drug of- fenses. Reversing, the State Supreme Court distinguished New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454—which held that police may search the pas- senger compartment of a vehicle and any containers therein as a con- temporaneous incident of a recent occupant’s lawful arrest—on the ground that it concerned the scope of a search incident to arrest but did not answer the question whether officers may conduct such a search once the scene has been secured. Because Chimel v. Califor- nia, 395 U. S. 752, requires that a search incident to arrest be justi- fied by either the interest in officer safety or the interest in preserv- ing evidence and the circumstances of Gant’s arrest implicated neither of those interests, the State Supreme Court found the search unreasonable.
    [Show full text]
  • PABLE Certificate of Good Standing Repository List
    CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING CONTACT LIST Current as of May, 2019 This list is being provided only to assist you in your search It is your obligation to confirm the requirements with the jurisdiction issuing the Certificate of Good Standing ALABAMA COLORADO GEORGIA INDIANA Supreme Court of Alabama Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center Supreme Court of Georgia Clerk of the Supreme Court Office Supreme Court Clerk Colorado Supreme Court 244 Washington Street, SW Roll of Attorneys Administrator COGS Request Office of Attorney Registration Rm. 572 402 West Washington Street 300 Dexter Avenue 1300 Broadway, Suite 510 Atlanta, GA 30334 Room W062 Montgomery, AL 36104 Denver, CO 80203 (404) 656-3470 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (334) 229-0700 (303) 928-7800 (404) 656-2253 Fax (317) 232-5861, ext. 4 Fee: $15 Fee: $10, CC or MO payable to Fee: $10 Fee: $2, payable to the Clerk of http://judicial.alabama.gov/appellate Clerk of Supreme Court, Written request include SASE Courts w/ SASE call or send a /cogs send written request include SASE. https://www.gasupreme.us/court- written request http://coloradosupremecourt.com/C %20information/purchase/ https://courts- ALASKA urrent%20Lawyers/DocumentRequ ingov.zendesk.com/hc/en- Clerk of Appellate Courts ests.asp GUAM us/articles/115005248968-How-do- 303 K Street Supreme Court of Guam I-obtain-an-attorney-Certificate-of- Anchorage, AK 99501 Board of Law Examiners Good-Standing- CONNECTICUT (907) 264-0608 / 0612 Suite 300, Guam Judicial Center Clerk of the Superior Court Fee: no charge, written request for 120 W. O'Brien Drive Hartford Judicial District IOWA Supreme Court issued certificate Hagåtña, GU 96910 95 Washington Street Clerk of Supreme Court https://alaskabar.org/for- (671) 475-3120 / 3180 Hartford, CT 06106 1111 E.
    [Show full text]