Summons and Complaint Circuit Court Virginia Sample
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Supreme Court of the United States
No. _________ ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ALFREDO JUAREZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Colorado --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PHILIP L. TORREY Counsel of Record CRIMMIGRATION CLINIC HARVARD IMMIGRATION AND CLINICAL PROGRAM HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 6 Everett Street, Suite 3105 Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-0638 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Padilla v. Kentucky, this Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel requires counsel to provide correct legal advice to noncitizen-defendants about the immigration con- sequences of a prospective guilty plea. 559 U.S. 356, 368–69 (2010). If federal law is “succinct, clear, and explicit” about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, then defense counsel’s duty to explain those consequences is equally clear. Id. at 368. In con- trast, defense counsel need -
Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions
Maryland Law Review Volume 38 | Issue 2 Article 7 Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions, 38 Md. L. Rev. 242 (1978) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol38/iss2/7 This Casenotes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SURVEY OF MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS THE INHERENT POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - STATE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS AND TAXATION v. CLARK Maryland courts have frequently claimed an inherent power to review and correct arbitrary, illegal, capricious, or unreasonable administrative decisions.' Recently, however, in State Department of Assessments and Taxation v. Clark,2 the Maryland Court of Appeals restricted the scope of this power by finding that a circuit court did not have jurisdiction to determine whether administrative authority to reduce a real property assessment pursuant to article 81, section 67 of the Maryland Code was exercised in an arbitrary fashion.3 The Court of Appeals held that the circuit courts' jurisdiction is limited to questions concerning the constitutionality of the administrator's actions. 4 Clark implicitly recognized that circuit courts 1. E.g., Zion Evangelical Luth. Church v. State Highway Admin., 276 Md. -
Case 3:18-Cv-00428-HEH Document 85 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 36 Pageid# 716
Case 3:18-cv-00428-HEH Document 85 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 36 PageID# 716 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION FALLS CHURCH MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, ) d/b/a FALLS CHURCH HEALTHCARE CENTER, ) et al.; ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 3:18cv428-HEH ) M. NORMAN OLIVER, Virginia Health ) Commissioner, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS I-IV and COUNTS VII -VIII OF PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT i Case 3:18-cv-00428-HEH Document 85 Filed 03/11/19 Page 2 of 36 PageID# 717 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD .....................................1 STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ..............................................................3 ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................................7 A. Defendants are Entitled to Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ As-Applied Challenge to Virginia’s Physician-Only Law. ..........................................................................................7 1. Virginia Code § 18.2-72, as applied, imposes no substantial obstacle to abortion care. 8 2. Virginia Code § 18.2-72, as applied, provides benefits -
The Legacy of Justice in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County
Their Story: The Legacy of Justice in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County The Honorable Sheila R. Tillerson Adams Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Honorable Albert W. Northrop Born in Illinois, the Honorable Albert W. Northrop is the son of an U.S. Air Force chaplain. As a result, he and his family moved every few years. Judge Northrop attended University of Maryland at Munich Campus, in Munich, Germany. Shortly after, Judge Northrop transferred to University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland where he received his bachelor’s of arts degree in June 1969. Following, he returned to the University of Maryland School of Law and received his law degree in 1974. One year later, in 1975, he was admitted to the Maryland Bar. He entered private practice of law in February 1975. Judge Northrop was appointed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County in June 2006. Judge Northrop served as an Associate Judge of District Court of Maryland, District 5, Prince George’s County from January 2003 to June 2006. Judge Northrop was sworn in as a Judge of the Orphans Court for Prince George’s County in August 1986. During his time as Judge of Orphans Court, Judge Northrop co-authored, “Decedents’ Estates in Maryland” published by Mitchie Law Book Publishing. In October 2017, Judge Northrop retired from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. Honorable C. Philip Nichols, Jr. A fifth generation Prince Georgian, C. Philip Nichols, Jr. graduated from Georgetown University in 1969 and received his law degree from University of Baltimore School of Law in 1973. -
Federal and Local Jurisdiction in the District of Columbia
Notes Federal and Local Jurisdiction in the District of Columbia The 1982 trial of John Hinckley for the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan brought to the public's attention a unique fea- ture of the criminal justice system in the District of Columbia. Although federal and state charges never are joined together for trial, federal and D.C. Code charges may be joined in one indictment under section 11- 502(3) of the D.C. Code,' and tried before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.' In the Hinckley case, the federal prosecutor used section 11-502(3) to join three federal and ten D.C. Code charges. This joinder required the district court to determine whether to use both federal and D.C. Code evidentiary standards during the trial, or only one standard. The court ruled that only federal standards would be used,' and therefore placed the 1. Under D.C. CODE ANN. § 11-502(3) (1981), the United States District Court has jurisdiction over "[any offense under any law applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia which offense is joined in the same information or indictment with any Federal offense." A similar but more limited jurisdictional statute is found at D.C. CODE ANN. § 23-311(b) (1981): Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information as provided in subsection (a) [offenses charged are of similar character or based on same transaction] even though one or more is in violation of the laws of the United States and another is in violation of the laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia and may be prosecuted as pro- vided in Section 11-502(3). -
United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia Harrisonburg Division
United States District Court For the Western District of Virginia Harrisonburg Division _________________________________________ ) ) Civil No. 5:12cv00056 THOMAS L. SWITZER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) REPORT AND v. ) RECOMMENDATION ) ) SHERIFF JOHN THOMAS, et al, ) By: James G. Welsh ) U. S. Magistrate Judge Defendants. ) ) _________________________________________ ) This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to previously entered orders of referral. (Doc. 5, 17 and 18). Thomas L. Switzer (“Switzer” or “the plaintiff”), is a frequent litigant in this district, and he brings this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at the Page County (Virginia) Jail alleging that those officials subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 3). He also alleges that a jail nurse violated the privacy requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) by disclosing Switzer’s private medical information to other jail personnel and inmates. In response the defendants have moved to dismiss Switzer’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which this court can grant him relief (Doc. 9) and further moved for entry of an order requiring pre-filing review (Doc. 11 and 40). A show cause order (Doc. 49) was thereafter entered on September 20, 2012 providing the plaintiff with notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond to the defendants’ motion seeking a system of pre-filing review. See Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 819 (4th Cir. 2004) (“before a judge issues a pre-filing injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), even a narrowly tailored one, he must afford a litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard.”); F.R.C.P 11(c)(1). -
Improper Delegation of Judicial Authority in Child Custody Cases: Finally Overturned Dale Margolin Cecka University of Richmond, [email protected]
University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2017 Improper Delegation of Judicial Authority in Child Custody Cases: Finally Overturned Dale Margolin Cecka University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications Part of the Courts Commons, Family Law Commons, and the Juvenile Law Commons Recommended Citation Dale Margolin Cecka, Improper Delegation of Judicial Authority in Child Custody Cases: Finally Overturned, 52 U. Rich. L. Rev. 181 (2017). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPROPER DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES: FINALLY OVERTURNED Dale Margolin Cecka * "The appellate courts of this Commonwealth are not unlit rooms where attorneys may wander blindly about, hoping to stumble upon a reversible error." These words of Judge Humphreys, denying a 2016 child custody appeal, are cogent.2 Yet four months later, in another appeal, Judge Humphreys joined a unanimous decision overturning a com- mon provision in a custody order.3 In Bonhotel v. Watts, the Court of Appeals of Virginia held that judges cannot delegate judicial de- cision making power in child custody cases to outside profession- als. 4 This sounds obvious, but such delegation is actually ordered * Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Jeanette Family Law Clinic, University of Richmond School of Law, Richmond, Virginia. -
The Circuit Court
The Circuit Court The circuit court is the trial court of general jurisdiction in Virginia, and the court has authority to try a full range of both civil and criminal cases. Civil cases involve disputes essentially private in nature between two or more parties; criminal cases are controversies between the Commonwealth and persons accused of a crime. Only in a circuit court is a jury provided for the trial of many of these disputes and controversies. The Virginia circuit court system is composed of 31 judicial circuits with 120 separate circuit courts in the various counties and cities of the Commonwealth. The Supreme Court of Virginia establishes the rules of practice and procedure for the circuit courts, and the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court serves as the administrator of the circuit court system. Judges and Clerks A circuit court judge is elected for an eight-year term by a majority vote of both houses of the General Assembly. If the General Assembly is not in session when a vacancy occurs, the Governor temporarily appoints a judge (interim appointment) to serve until the General Assembly meets again and can elect a judge for a full term. There are at least two judges serving each circuit and as many as 15 serving in larger circuits. The chief judge of the circuit is elected by majority vote of the judges serving the circuit. Circuit court judges are required to reside in the circuit they serve and must have been admitted to the Virginia Bar at least five years prior to election or appointment. -
The Evolution of the Courts of the DC Circuit
The Evolution of the Courts of the D.C. Circuit (For almost 200 years, the judicial system of the District of Columbia dealt with a commixture of federal and local concerns born of its unique character as the capital of all the states, yet not a state. Faced with the needs of a growing population and an increasingly complex federal government, Congress repeatedly reorganized the District of Columbia courts, reallocating jurisdiction for federal and local matters between the various courts, sometimes unifying the courts, sometimes dividing them. The federal courts that constitute today’s District of Columbia Circuit emerged in their current role in 1971.) The Early Years Congress established the District of Columbia in 1791. However, the District’s judiciary was not created until ten years later, three months after Congress and the President, John Adams, set up shop in Washington. During the intervening decade the courts of Maryland and Virginia continued to be used in the portion carved out of each state. After establishing a framework for the federal judiciary for the rest of the nation, Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of February 27, 1801, creating a Circuit Court to meet the needs of the District of Columbia. The Court’s jurisdiction was broad, encompassing not only most of the authority of a federal circuit court, including its appellate jurisdiction, but also that of a state trial court. The act divided the District into two counties, Alexandria and Washington. The three judges were required to hold four sessions a year in each county. When it acted as a state court, it applied the law and procedures of Virginia and Maryland, depending on which side of the river it sat. -
Opinion, Russell W. Mason V. Christine Torrellas, No. 15-0726
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2016 Term _______________ FILED October 6, 2016 No. 15-0726 released at 3:00 p.m. _______________ RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA RUSSELL W. MASON, Executor of the Estate of Christine Ebert, Petitioner v. CHRISTINE TORRELLAS, Ancillary Administratrix of the Estate of Christine Ebert, Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mineral County The Honorable Phil Jordan, Judge Civil Action No. 15-C-9 REVERSED AND REMANDED ____________________________________________________________ Submitted: September 21, 2016 Filed: October 6, 2016 Daniel R. James, Esq. Charles F. Johns, Esq. Nicholas T. James, Esq. Denielle M. Stritch, Esq. Keyser, West Virginia Steptoe & Johnson PLLC Counsel for the Petitioner Bridgeport, West Virginia Counsel for the Respondent CHIEF JUSTICE KETCHUM delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. “‘The trial court, in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, should not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).” Syllabus Point 3, Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co. Inc., 160 W.Va. 530, 236 S.E.2d 207 (1977). 2. “Under Section 1, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States, the judgment or decree of a court of record of another state will be given full faith and credit in the courts of this State, unless it be clearly shown by pleading and proof that the court of such other state was without jurisdiction to render the same, or that it was procured through fraud.” Syllabus Point 1, in part, Clark v. -
New Role of State Supreme Courts As Engines of Court Reform
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 81 NOVEMBER 2006 NUMBER 5 BRENNAN LECTURE THE NEW ROLE OF STATE SUPREME COURTS AS ENGINES OF COURT REFORM RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIANA* In this speech delivered for the annual Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. Lecture on State Courts and Social Justice, the Honorable Randall T. Shepard examines the growing role of state supreme courts in remaking the American system of justice. The vast size of the state court system, the flexibility of state rulemaking authority, and recent changes in the way state courts are financed have placed these high courts at the forefront of efforts to administerand reform their states' court systems. Chief Justice Shepard explores three major areas of court reform led by state supreme courts. First, state high courts have reformed the American jury by making it more inclusive and representative, and by improving its decisionmaking capabilities. Second, these courts have implemented new initiatives to ensure equal access to justice by providing legal assistance to low-income individuals in civil cases, creating pro bono programs, and assisting pro se litigants. Third, state supreme courts have fostered equal opportunity by addressing bias and disparate treatment within the court system, and by working to ensure that the legal profes- sion itself is open to all people. Finally, Chief Justice Shepard describes a range of other ways in which state supreme courts have been remaking their states' court systems, from creating specialized courts to training judges in the sciences. In a profession that is fond of traditionand slow to change, many of these reforms could only proceed with leadership from state high courts. -
In the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
Case 1:16-cv-00107-FPS Document 42 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: <pageID> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BISON RESOURCES CORPORATION, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:16CV107 (STAMP) ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation and ANTERO RESOURCES APPALACHIAN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation and predecessor-in-interest to defendant Antero Resources Corporation, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND SCHEDULING STATUS AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE This is a dispute over the right to drill for natural gas relating to a set of oil and gas leases. The plaintiff, Bison Resources Corporation (“Bison Resources”), claims it holds rights of first refusal to drill relating to certain oil and gas leases. The defendants, Antero Resources Corporation and Antero Resources Appalachian Corporation (collectively “Antero”), allegedly drilled wells on the subject properties without first presenting Bison Resources with the opportunity to do so. Antero filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and for nonjoinder of an indispensable party under Rule 12(b)(7). After limited discovery regarding the nonjoinder issue, Antero seeks to withdraw its motion as to that issue and asserts only that Bison Resources fails to state a claim, Case 1:16-cv-00107-FPS Document 42 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: <pageID> arguing that the rights of first refusal were either not transferrable to Bison Resources or violate the rule against perpetuities and that Bison Resources should be judicially estopped from asserting its claims in this civil action.