DOCSLIB.ORG

Current State Legislative and Judicial Profiles on Land-Use Regulations in the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Current State Legislative and Judicial Profiles on Land-Use Regulations in the U.S DDRRAAFFTT Please do not cite without consent of authors. CURRENT STATE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROFILES ON LAND-USE REGULATIONS IN THE U.S. David D. Foster and Anita A. Summers September 20, 2005 Zell/Lurie Real Estate Center Wharton School University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104-6302 INTRODUCTION This paper summarizes and calibrates the legislative and judicial environment surrounding residential land-use regulation in each of the fifty states. BACKGROUND This paper is part of a large project on residential land-use regulation currently being conducted by the Zell/Lurie Real Estate Center in the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. The overall objectives of the project are (1) to develop a thorough and systematic data base on the nature of the land-use environment throughout the United States, and (2) to use these data to help better understand the underlying causes and effects of the variation in residential-use regulations across local communities. Several types of data have been, and still are being, assembled: (1) a nationwide land-use regulation survey sent to a sample of 6,897 municipalities; (2) the same survey sent to every jurisdiction (368) in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Statistical Area; (3) an extensive socioeconomic and housing activity profile from the 2000 Census (and previous Censuses); (4) data that measure community pressure in a variety of ways (ballot initiatives and membership in conservation organization, e.g.); (5) the legislative activity and judicial bent in each state – the subject of this paper. Two major types of econometric analyses are planned: (1) analysis of the effects of variations in regulatory severity among municipalities on employment and population shifts, housing costs, and the tradeoff between efficiency and public good benefits; (2) analyses of the effects of population and employment characteristics, environmental pressures and state judicial and legislative activities on regulatory severity. STATE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROFILES ON RESIDENTIAL LAND-USE REGULATION This paper has fifty state profiles describing the legislative and judicial climate in which land-use regulations take place in the individual jurisdictions in the state. The legislative environment is assessed on the basis of the level of activity over the last ten years in the executive and legislative branches. The judicial environment is assessed on the basis of the tendency of appellate courts to uphold or restrain four types of municipal land-use regulations – impact fees and exactions, fair share development requirements, building moratoria, and spot or exclusionary zoning. The state assessments are described in three ways: (1) The legislative activity and judicial tendencies are described in each of the state profiles. (2) A score is assigned to each for each state. The legislative score is based on the extent of recent activity – 1 for little recent activity, 2 for moderate recent activity, and 3 for a high level of recent activity. The judicial score is based on the extent of restraint imposed by the appellate courts – 3 if supportive of municipal regulation, 2 if neither highly restrictive nor highly supportive, l if restrictive, 0 if there is insufficient case law to make a determination. (3) A summary table of the material in each of the profiles is included. We are now in the process of analyzing these results – their role in the determination of the severity of land-use regulations in different states, and the characteristics of the states associated with the legislative and judicial characteristics. SCORING KEY FOR STATE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL ACTIONS ON LAND-USE REGULATION IN THE U.S. The following key explains the scoring system used in each of the state surveys. The Legislative score is based on the level of activity in the Executive and Legislative branches over the past ten years that is directed toward enacting greater statewide land use restrictions. The Judicial score reflects the tendency of appellate courts to uphold or restrain municipal land use regulations. LEGISLATIVE SCORE: Score Summary 1 Little recent activity 2 Moderate activity 3 High level of activity JUDICIAL SCORE: Score Summary 0 Insufficient case law to make a determination There are several reasons why this situation occurs, including but not limited to: a particularly directed statutory framework that makes the appeal of a trial court decision unlikely or the relative lack of municipal land use restrictions. 1 Restricts municipal land use regulation A typical example is a state in which the majority of appellate decisions have invalidated spot zoning and the imposition of impact fees, or have placed a relatively high standard for local governments to meet in implementing these land use tools. 2 Neither highly restrictive nor highly supportive of municipal regulation A typical example is a state in which the majority of appellate decisions have struck down impact fees and upheld spot zoning. 3 Supportive of municipal regulation A typical example is a state in which the majority of appellate decisions uphold impact fees, spot zoning and the use of building moratoria. These states may also have judicially imposed fair share housing or development requirements. Last printed 10/4/2005 11:16 AM ALABAMA Summary: Alabama has largely placed land use planning powers in the hands of municipal governments, and there has been little activity in the legislature aimed at imposing state-wide development restrictions. Similarly, there has been relatively little litigation related to land use regulations. In those areas that have been litigated—sewer hookup moratoria and spot zoning— the courts have consistently deferred to the regulatory authority of the municipalities. LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY In 2000, then-Governor Don Siegelman created the Alabama Commission on Environmental Initiatives through Executive Order 26.1 Despite the recommendations of the Commission, however,2 the Alabama Legislature has done very little to change the State’s existing land use planning system. As a consequence, land use planning remains largely the responsibility of local governments, and there is no evidence that the state legislature is likely to impose meaningful restrictions on these powers in the near future. As one study suggests, “[T]he challenge facing planners may be more of one preventing bills from being adopted that erode the ability of local government to plan for, and regulate, land use and development.”3 • Legislative Rating: 1 (Little recent activity) JUDICIAL SUMMARY Given the limited implementation of land use restrictions in Alabama, the state’s judiciary has had only a few opportunities to shape its jurisprudence in this area. Regarding building moratoria and spot zoning, the courts have largely supported municipal regulation. In the area of building moratoria, this municipal regulation is limited to the imposition of sewer hook up moratoria. In the area of exclusionary zoning, the courts have adopted the less prevalent position that grants broad power to the municipality to make changes to the comprehensive plan. • Judicial Rating: 3 (Generally supportive of municipal regulation) 1. Impact Fees / Exactions: There are no Alabama cases that directly address the issue of impact or development fees. Regarding municipal fees in general, Alabama courts have largely upheld a broadly defined power for municipalities to impose such fees. As an example, the court in Densmore v. Jefferson County upheld a municipal storm-water management fee based on the principle that, “for a fee to be sustained as valid, the benefit 4 conferred on property owners need not relate directly to the exact amount paid.” 1 Executive Order No. 26 (2000) available at http://www.jsu.edu/depart/epic/executiveorder26.html. 2 The full text of the report is available at http://www.jsu.edu/depart/epic/ACEIreport.htm. 3 APA 2002 State of the States p 32 4 813 So. 2d 844, 854 (Ala. 2001) (citing Board of Water & Sewer Commissioners of the City of Mobile v. Yarbrough, 662 So. 2d 251 (Ala. 1995)). Last printed 10/4/2005 11:16 AM 2. Fair Share Development Requirements: The Alabama judiciary has not imposed any fair- share development requirements on municipalities. 3. Building Moratoria: Alabama jurisprudence on the issue of building moratoria has exclusively addressed the issue of sewer hook up moratoria. On this issue, the courts have clearly upheld the power of a municipality to enforce such a restriction. Specifically, one court has held that moratoria on new connections to an existing sewer system are “manifestations of the sovereign's paramount police power which has long been held to ‘embrace the protection of the lives, health, and the property of the citizens . .’ and to which private contractual obligations must yield.”5 Arbitrary, case-by-case restrictions in the absence of a universal moratorium, however, have not survived judicial scrutiny.6 Taken together, these decisions may be viewed as upholding municipal restrictions within an established regulatory scheme. More telling, however, is the absence of litigation challenging general building moratoria. The absence of litigation on this issue suggests that such moratoria are not widely imposed by municipalities in Alabama. 4. Spot Zoning / Exclusionary Zoning: The Alabama Courts have adopted the less common position on the issue of spot zoning that holds valid any change in zoning where there is a comprehensive plan in effect. As one court has stated, “where an existing comprehensive plan is in effect, no amendment thereto can be attacked as being 'spot' zoning.”7 This rule and the subsequent decisions that apply it are not necessarily restrictive or non- restrictive, since spot zoning may be used to either promote or discourage a particular development project. The rule does grant a high degree of deference to the local government in the areas of planning and zoning. In fact, since 1950, no Alabama court has invalidated a change in the zoning classification of a property on the grounds that it resulted in spot zoning. 5 See Peterson v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1988 Xi FIGURE D: Criminal Case Unit of Count Used by the State Trial Courts
    AJIIL State court T caseload statistics: Annual Report 1988 Wyoming Conference of State Court Administrators Alabama Alaska Arizl :alifornia Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida laho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Mary1 Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevad; ew Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohia C 'ennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota ' tah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming ourt Administrators Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Coll elaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois In Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mint lissouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New orth Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Pui ;land South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Conference of State Court Administratc Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District1 1 NCSC 1 KF i A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators i 180 , .c74 I and the National Center for State Courts : 1988 I c. 2 I bu .CT q IC1 bS glib state court c ,a-- T caseload statistics: Annual Report, 1988 Funding Provided by the STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE Grant Number SJI 88-07X-067 ~pdcJ-3-clO A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators, State Justice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts’ Court Statistics Project February 1990 Library National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Av~. WilIiarnsburg, VA 231 87-8798 Copyright@by The National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-097-X National Center Publication No. R-115 This report was developed under Grant SJI-88-07X-067 from the State Justice Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Work of State Courts, 2003: a National Perspective~Orn the Court Statistics Project (National Center for State Courts 2004)
    / >- / .p / I - / 2 p~-£¢ ¢ / f ; ~ -/ I!' / • ~ / / / / / / I r / / • \ j- / / / \ j / l - ,. - _,~ .i ..: ~ i • ... : .. - .... --, :y-'i:~ . / / // I \ / / L \ f f/ !/ / / / I J 0 k 0 ~.!-, ~ ..... =~"~'~- .~==-'-_.,,'~ ..... H'-.!~ .~='._ ~_~ " ~ . i -~.:..~_~ .=a~._'.~-~ , - . ~__,~:.~.~.~F~, ,~- ,, i~ ff -- - ~2 J -- o 4,9 • ,'-!-'.~-a~'7!" - ".--'~-" ...'a~-.:.~'.*S~:~.%-'~t't~:~.&.~;_e~ ~- -- p a+ = T ~ ";---- Edited by Brian J. Ostrom Neal B. Kauder Robert C. LaFounrain Richard Y. Schauff]er Shauna M. Strickland ]. .-_.. o.. Court Statistics Project Staff and Contributors ex'Y - • • , , - - * . .<'a~ . ......_ Brian J. Ostrom, Director • *~'~>i:'; ~ " " '' - -, :,>_:,,,._ _.. .... _ Fred L. Cheesman, Sr. Court Research Associate - ~,.. .. Neal B. Kauder, Consultant. VisualResearch, Inc. - ,.]. ~b't •. Ann L. Keith, Court Research Associate Robert C. LaFountain, Court Mauagement Consultant Nicole L. Mott. Cou,t Research Associate Richard Y. Schauffler, Director, Research Services Shauna M. Strickland, Court Research Analyst -a Brenda G. Otto, Prograln Specialist # - ........... o .... • - ."., ,~/--~,:;: :' -,:E-. " -- : • " :~ - rU..~:~. :,:~- ~.,~'., ,~ A joint project of the Co,d'ereucc of State Court Adminisrtators, the Btueau of Justice Statistics, and the National Center for State Courts' O..-...,_.:-:: ,,; ,,.~2~;..i: Court Statistics Project. .... •~-,7:~ 'r 5~-.=~ -'.~ --- " :" _ ', ,_" -:',~',~X,.#~:_.,-4> e~-.._ ,.. ~.,, "'1,~-' :,-~ ~' -a" ,.~',:.'- '.i "".':" r.-%1. - ,- ~,~ ".'~2":,"." . ~:~ . ~'.-_ "~.~ ~', .. .-'
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Deirdre M. Smith, Esq. Regarding LD 719, Resolve, To
    Testimony of Deirdre M. Smith, Esq. regarding LD 719, Resolve, To Establish the Commission To Create a Plan To Incorporate the Probate Courts into the Judicial Branch submitted to the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary, April 1, 2021. Good afternoon, Senator Carney, Representative Harnett, and other members of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary. My name is Deirdre M. Smith, and I am a resident of Pownal, Maine. I am an attorney as well as a professor on the faculty of the University of Maine School of Law. I am also the Director of the Law School’s legal aid clinic, where I supervise student attorneys who represent low-income Maine residents with matters in federal and state courts and agencies. My testimony in support of LD 719 represents my personal views only and not the position of the University of Maine School of Law or the University of Maine System. Our Clinic students represent litigants in matters in county Probate Courts around the state. When I started supervising those cases several years ago, I was immediately struck by the sharp differences between the Probate Courts and state courts. The District and Superior Courts are part of a system, and therefore they have a central administration to support and oversee the work of all clerks and judges, as well as uniform procedures and forms, training programs, an alternative dispute resolution program, data collection, and other features. By contrast, each Probate Court operates independently--with its own procedures, forms, and protocols--and therefore cannot benefit from the efficiencies, uniformity, and support of being part of a system of courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Howell-V-Howell-Petition.Pdf
    FiL.L~D 15 FEB I 6 2 316 No. ©FF]CE ©F T~E CLEfiK IN THE JOHN HOWELL, Petitioner, Vt SANDRA HOWELL, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Arizona Supreme Court PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI KEITH BERKSHIRE ADAM G. UNIKOWSKY BERKSHIRE LAW OFFICE Counsel of Record 5050 N. 40th St., BENJAMIN M. EIDELSON* Suite 340 JENNER & BLOCK LLP Phoenix, AZ 85018 1099 New York Ave., NW (602) 396-7669 Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 639-6000 aunikowsky@j enner.com *Not admitted in D.C.; supervised by principals of the Firm. BLANK PAGE i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act preempts a state court’s order directing a veteran to indemnify a former spouse for a reduction in the former spouse’s portion of the veteran’s military retirement pay, where that reduction results from the veteran’s post-divorce waiver of retirement pay in order to receive compensation for a service-connected disability. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ...............................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................v PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI .................1 OPINIONS BELOW ..........................................................1 JURISDICTION .................................................................1 STATUTES INVOLVED .................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................4 A. Statutory Framework .................................5 B. Proceedings Below ......................................7
    [Show full text]
  • History of Territorial Federal Judges for the Territory of Wyoming: 1869-1890
    Land & Water Law Review Volume 17 Issue 2 Article 9 1982 History of Territorial Federal Judges for the Territory of Wyoming: 1869-1890 Rebecca Wunder Thomson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water Recommended Citation Thomson, Rebecca Wunder (1982) "History of Territorial Federal Judges for the Territory of Wyoming: 1869-1890," Land & Water Law Review: Vol. 17 : Iss. 2 , pp. 567 - 619. Available at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water/vol17/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Land & Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. Thomson: History of Territorial Federal Judges for the Territory of Wyomin University of Wyoming College of Law LAND AND WATER LAW REVIEW VOLUME XVII 1982 NUMBER 2 A similar version of this article appeared in the Fall, 1981 (Volume 53, Number 2) edition of the Annals of Wyoming. This article is the first half of the author's work on the Federal bench in Wyoming, the remainder of the piece being entitled "United States District Judges for the District of Wyoming: 1890-1980." Immediately following the text of this article is a listing of the Territorial Federal Judges for the Territory of Wyoming during the years 1869-1890 (Appendix I), and a listing of the periods of service of the Justices of the Territorial Supreme Court of Wyoming (Appendix i1). HISTORY OF TERRITORIAL FEDERAL JUDGES FOR THE TERRITORY OF WYOMING: 1869-1890 Rebecca Wunder Thomson* Like all courts, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Coffin's Court: a Colleague's View
    Maine Law Review Volume 63 Number 2 Symposium:Remembering Judge Article 6 Frank M. Coffin: A Remarkable Legacy January 2011 Coffin's Court: A Colleague's View Levin Campbell Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr Part of the Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Levin Campbell, Coffin's Court: A Colleague's View, 63 Me. L. Rev. 417 (2011). Available at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol63/iss2/6 This Article and Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COFFIN’S COURT: A COLLEAGUE’S VIEW The Honorable Levin Campbell I. JOINING THE COFFIN COURT II. MORE ABOUT THE CIRCUIT COURTS AND THE FIRST CIRCUIT OF THE ‘70S III. ABOUT COLLEAGUES AND FACILITIES ON THE COFFIN COURT IV. WHERE THE JUDGES WORKED V. FUNCTIONING OF THE JUDGES VI. GOING TO PUERTO RICO VII. COLLEGIALITY 418 MAINE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 63:2 COFFIN’S COURT: A COLLEAGUE’S VIEW The Honorable Levin Campbell* I. JOINING THE COFFIN COURT These reminiscences focus on the eleven years, from 1972 to 1983, that Frank M. Coffin of Maine was the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. While Coffin’s judicial career extended over more than forty years, I chose this period because it was a time when his influence over the court’s work was at its peak, as well as because he himself later singled it out as a “judicial Garden of Eden,”1 during which the First Circuit enjoyed its status as the last remaining three-judge federal court of appeals in the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure
    WYOMING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Scope of Rules; One Form of Action Rule 28. Persons before whom depositions may be Rule taken. 1. Scope and purpose. 29. Stipulations about discovery procedure. 2. One form of action. 30. Depositions by oral examination. 31. Depositions by written questions. II. Commencement of Action; Service of 32. Using depositions in court proceedings. Process: Pleadings, Motions, and Orders 33. Interrogatories to parties. 3. Commencement of Action. 34. Producing documents, electronically stored 3.1. Civil cover sheet. information, and tangible things, or en- 4. Summons. tering onto land for inspection and other 5. Serving and filing pleadings and other pa- purposes. pers. 35. Physical and mental examinations. 36. Requests for admission. 5.1. Constitutional challenge to a statute. 37. Failure to make disclosures or to cooperate 5.2. Privacy protection for filings made with in discovery; sanctions. the court. 6. Time. VI. Trials III. Pleadings and Motions 38. Right to a jury trial; demand. 39. Trial by jury or by the court. 7. Pleadings allowed; form of motions and 39.1. Jury trial; jury note taking; juror other papers. notebooks. 8. General rules of pleading. 39.2. Juror questionnaires. 9. Pleading special matters. 39.3. Copies of instructions for jurors. 10. Form of pleadings. 39.4. Juror questions for witnesses. 11. Signing pleadings, motions, and other pa- 40. Assignment for trial or alternative dispute pers; representations to the court; sanc- resolution. tions. 40.1. Transfer of trial and change of judge 12. When and how presented; motion for judg- (Effective until July 1, 2019).
    [Show full text]
  • March 24, 1989 Clerk of Appellate Courts
    PAUL R. HANNAH ATTORNEYAT LAW SUITE 1122,PlONEER BUILDING 336 ROBERT STREET SAINTPAUL,MINNESOTA 55101 FAX 1612) 223-5802 TELEPHONE (6121223-5525 March 24, 1989 OFFiCE 0% APPELLATE COURTS Clerk of Appellate Courts 230 State Capitol Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 Re: In Re Modification of Canon 3A(7) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct Dear Clerk: I desire to make an oral presentation to the Court at the hearing on this matter on April 13, 1989. PRH:ps STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT C7-81-300 OFFICE OF APPELLATE COURTS In Re Modification of Canon 3A(7) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct Minnesota Joint Media Committee, Petitioners. COMMENTOF COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 18, 1981, several broadcast organizations petitioned this Court to modify Canon 3A(7) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct to permit audio and video coverage of trial court proceedings in this state. On August 10, 1981, this Court established the Minnesota Advisory Commission on Cameras in the Courtroom and asked it to prepare findings of fact and recommendations concerning the use of broadcast and photographic equipment in the trial courts of this state. On January 12, 1982, that Commission recommended to this Court that cameras and microphones be allowed in trial courtrooms under certain conditions. The conditions included precise rules governing the way in which the media would conduct itself, the technology which could be used and the method of its use. After public hearings, on April 18, 1983, this Court adopted the recommendation of its Commission that audio and visual coverage of state trial court proceedings be allowed on an experimental basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Maine State Legislature
    MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) Legislative Record House of Representatives One Hundred and Twenty-First Legislature State of Maine Volume III Second Special Session April 8, 2004 - April 30, 2004 Appendix House Legislative Sentiments Index Pages 1563-2203 Legislative Sentiments Legislative Record House of Representatives One Hundred and Twenty-First Legislature State of Maine LEGISLATIVE RECORD - HOUSE APPENDIX December 4, 2002 to November 30, 2004 APPENDIX TO THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD players Elizabeth Bruen, Stephanie Gonzales, Meredith McArdle, 121ST MAINE LEGISLATURE Chelsea Cote, Sara Farnum, Kristina Grimaldi, Ashley Higgins, Whitney Huse, Melissa Joyce, Emily Mason, Lindsay Monn, Dr. Ronald Lott, of Orono, who was presented with Ithe Ashley Beaulieu, Arielle DeRice, Emma Grandstaff, Callan Kilroy, Veterinary Service Award by the Maine Veterinary Medical Hannah Monn, Amanda Wood, Ashley Dragos, Hannah Jansen, Association. The award recognizes his tireless efforts, through Bridget Hester and Christina Capozza; assistant coach Andy the establishment of shelters, to care for unwanted animals. Dr. Pappas; and Head Coach Melissa Anderson. We extend our Lott began his work with stray animals as an intern at Rowley congratulations and best wishes to the team and the school on Memorial Animal Hospital. In 1981, he established Ithe this championship season; (HLS 8) Penobscot Valley Humane Society in Lincoln. Ten years later he the Falmouth "Yachtsmen" High School Boys Soccer Team, founded the Animal Orphanage in Old Town.
    [Show full text]
  • Due Process, Jurisdiction and a Hague Judgments Convention
    Pittsburgh University School of Law Scholarship@PITT LAW Articles Faculty Publications 1999 Due Process, Jurisdiction and a Hague Judgments Convention Ronald A. Brand University of Pittsburgh School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/fac_articles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Fourteenth Amendment Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Ronald A. Brand, Due Process, Jurisdiction and a Hague Judgments Convention, 60 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 661 (1999). Available at: https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/fac_articles/312 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship@PITT LAW. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@PITT LAW. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. ARTICLES DUE PROCESS, JURISDICTION AND A HAGUE JUDGMENTS CONVENTION Ronald A. Brand* Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................................... 662 11. Due Process and Jurisdiction in United States Courts ........ 664 A. The Origins of Due Process in American Jurisprudence 664 B. The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and Questions of Jurisdiction ..................................... 667 1. Pennoyer v. Neff. territorial concepts of jurisdic- tion ........................................................ 667 2. Long-arm statutes and due process analysis ....... 669 3. InternationalShoe: jurisdiction for a mobile soci- ety ......................................................... 672 4. The road from International Shoe to World-Wide Volkswagen .............................................. 674 * Professor of Law and Director of the Center for International Legal Education, University of Pittsburgh School of Law. This article was presented as a Working Document on behalf of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Wyoming Drug Courts
    Management Audit Committee Representative Randall Luthi, Chairman Senator Grant Larson, Vice Chairman Senator Ken Decaria Senator John Hanes Senator Kit Jennings Senator John Schiffer Senator Kathryn Sessions Representative Roy Cohee Representative Debbie Hammons Representative Pete Illoway Representative Marty Martin Report Staff Barbara J. Rogers Program Evaluation Manager Michael Swank Program Evaluator Jim Reuss Associate Program Evaluator Karla Smith Associate Program Evaluator Wyoming Legislative Service Office EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Drug Courts Program Evaluation Section July 2006 Purpose therapeutic justice model in operation. In January 2006, the Management Audit Historically, drug courts started in individual Committee directed staff to undertake a communities as local initiatives, funded by review of the operations and impacts of drug the federal government, in an attempt to deal courts, as authorized in W.S.§ 5-10-101 with drug offenders and drug-related crime in through 107. In Wyoming, drug court is not a ways different from the traditional, punitive separate or specific level of court within the criminal justice model. judicial branch of government. Statute defines drug courts as a sentencing option that The drug court model entails a qualified judges may impose on offenders to break the offender volunteering to undergo strict cycle of addiction and crimes related to drug scrutiny of his or her life through regular drug and alcohol abuse. The goal is to assist court hearings, random alcohol and drug offenders in becoming constructive and testing, intensive supervised probation, and contributing members of society. substance abuse treatment. A judge leads the local team in managing the offender through Background the process; the team recommends to the Currently, 23 drug courts in 13 counties have judge immediate rewards and sanctions, state grant funding.
    [Show full text]
  • The Historical Journey of Black Women to the Nation's Highest Courts
    Black Women Judges: The Historical Journey of Black Women to the Nation’s Highest Courts THE H ON . A NNA B LACKBURNE -R IGSBY * INTRODUCTION . 646 I. BENEFITS TO HAVING A DIVERSE APPELLATE JUDICIARY . 649 II. PLACING THE FIRST BLACK MALE JUDGES AND FIRST WHITE WOMEN JUDGES INTO HISTORICAL CONTEXT . 652 A. Reconstruction: 1865-1877 . 653 B. End of Reconstruction: 1877 . 654 C. The Women’s Suffrage Movement: 1800-1920. 655 D. World War I: 1914-1918 (America entered the war in 1917) . 656 E. Great Migration: 1910-1930 . 657 F. World War II: 1939-1945 (America entered the war in 1941) . 658 * The Hon. Anna Blackburne-Rigsby is an Associate Judge on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. She was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush in 2006. Prior to that, she served for six years on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, nominated in 2000 by President William Jefferson Clinton. Prior to that appointment, she served for five years as a Magistrate Judge on the District of Columbia Superior Court. Judge Blackburne-Rigsby is married to Judge Robert R. Rigsby, Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court and a Colonel and Military Judge in the United States Army Reserves. They have one son, Julian. Judge Blackburne-Rigsby is the daughter of Justice Laura D. Blackburne, retired, New York State Supreme Court. Judge Blackburne-Rigsby acknowledges with gratitude the assistance of her research assis- tant, Precious Boone, Esq., a graduate of Cornell Law School. Judge Blackburne-Rigsby also acknowledges the assistance of Dr.
    [Show full text]