DOCSLIB.ORG

Defendant Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defendant Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices Case 5:19-cv-00281-HE Document 43 Filed 06/21/19 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1) MARK E. SCHELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Case No. 5:19-cv-00281-HE ) (2) NOMA GURICH, Chief Justice of the ) Oklahoma Supreme Court; et al. ) ) Defendants. ) MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO ABSTAIN OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF Kieran D. Maye, Jr., OBA No. 11419 Leslie M. Maye, OBA No. 4853 Maye Law Firm 3501 French Park Dr., Suite A Edmond, OK 73034 405-990-2415 (telephone) 866-818-0482 (fax) [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for the Chief Justice and Justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court June 21, 2019 Case 5:19-cv-00281-HE Document 43 Filed 06/21/19 Page 2 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1) MARK E. SCHELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Case No. 5:19-cv-00281-HE ) (2) NOMA GURICH, Chief Justice of the ) Oklahoma Supreme Court; ) (3) TOM COLBERT, Associate Justice of the ) Oklahoma Supreme Court; ) (4) DOUG COMBS, Associate Justice of the ) Oklahoma Supreme Court; ) (5) RICHARD DARBY; Associate Justice of the ) Oklahoma Supreme Court; ) (6) JAMES E. EDMONDSON, Associate ) Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court; ) (7) YVONNE KAUGER, Associate Justice of the ) Oklahoma Supreme Court; ) (8) JAMES R. WINCHESTER, Associate Justice ) of the Oklahoma Supreme Court; ) (9) JANE DOE, successor to John Reif as ) Associate Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court; ) (10) JOHN DOE, successor to Patrick Wyrick as ) Associate Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court; ) (11) CHARLES W. CHESNUT, President, ) Oklahoma Bar Association Board of Governors; ) (12) SUSAN B. SHIELDS, President-Elect, ) Oklahoma Bar Association Board of Governors; ) (13) LANE R. NEAL, Vice President, ) Oklahoma Bar Association Board of Governors; ) (14) JOHN M. WILLIAMS, Executive Director ) Oklahoma Bar Association, and Secretary/ ) Treasurer, Oklahoma Bar Association Board of ) Governors; ) (15) KIMBERLY HAYS, Past President, ) Oklahoma Bar Association Board of Governors; ) (16) BRIAN T. HERMANSON, Member, ) Oklahoma Bar Association Board of Governors, ) ) Defendants. ) i Case 5:19-cv-00281-HE Document 43 Filed 06/21/19 Page 3 of 17 Table of Contents SUMMARY OF THE CASE .......................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2 INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES ARE NOT PROPER DEFENDANTS ............................................ 2 INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES ARE IMMUNE ............................................................................... 3 THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE ACTIONS OF THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT ........................................................................................... 5 THE COURT SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM INTERFERING IN STATE COURT MATTERS ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 OKLAHOMA’S INTEGRATED BAR AND DUES STRUCTURE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL ................................................................................................................ 10 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 11 i Case 5:19-cv-00281-HE Document 43 Filed 06/21/19 Page 4 of 17 Table of Authorities Cases Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998) .................................................................. 5 Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................... 3 Burford v. Sun Oil Company, 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1943) .............................................................. 8 Collins v. Daniels, 916 F.3d 1302 (10th Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................ 4, 5, 11 District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983) .......................................................... 5, 6 Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Association, 998 F.2d 1559 (10th Cir. 1993) .............................................................................................. 6, 7 Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 715 (1908) ........................................................................... 3 Forrester [v. White], 484 U.S. [219], 108 S.Ct. 538 .................................................................................................. 11 Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) ....................................................................................................................... 3 Keller v. State Bar of Calif., 496 U.S. 1 (1990) ....................................................................................................................... 2 Landrith v. Hazlett, 170 Fed.Appx. 29 (10th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................. 9 Lane v Oklahoma Supreme Court, 221 F.3d 1352 (10th Cir. 2000). ................................................................................................. 6 Lehman v. City of Louisville, 967 F.2d 1474 (10th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................. 8 Lyman v. San Juan County, 588 Fed.Appx. 764 (10th Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................... 9 Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982) .......................................................... 8, 9 Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) ..................................................................................................................... 3 Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco. Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 107 S.Ct. 1529, 95 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987) ...................................................................... 8 Rose v. Utah, 399 Fed.Appx. 430 (10th Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................... 9 Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) ..................................................................................................................... 3 Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673 (10th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................. 11 Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, 446 U.S. 719, 100 S.Ct.1967, 64 L.Ed.2d 641 (1980) ........................................................... 4, 5 ii Case 5:19-cv-00281-HE Document 43 Filed 06/21/19 Page 5 of 17 Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) .................................................................... 5 Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431 (10th Cir. 1986) .............................................................................................. 5, 6 Wilton v. Seven Falls Company, 515 U.S. 277 (1995) ............................................................................................................. 9, 10 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) ................................................................ 7, 8 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1257 ......................................................................................................................... 5, 6 28 U.S.C. §2201(a) ....................................................................................................................... 10 Other Authorities Okla. Const. art. 7 ........................................................................................................................... 2 U.S. Const. amend. XI .................................................................................................................... 3 Rules FED.R.CIV.P. 12 b.1 ........................................................................................................................ 1 FED.R.CIV.P. 12 b.6 ........................................................................................................................ 1 iii Case 5:19-cv-00281-HE Document 43 Filed 06/21/19 Page 6 of 17 MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO ABSTAIN OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF Defendants, Noma Gurich, Chief Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court; Tom Colbert, Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court; Doug Combs, Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court; Richard Darby, Vice Chief Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court; James E. Edmondson, Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court; Yvonne Kauger, Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court; and James R. Winchester, Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, referred to collectively herein as the “Justices” for the reasons set forth below, hereby move the Court to dismiss the subject action pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12 b.1. and FED.R.CIV.P. 12 b.6. or in the alternative to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in this matter. In support of their motions, the Justices would show the Court as follows. SUMMARY OF THE CASE In this case, at its core, Plaintiff asks this Court to invade the exclusive jurisdiction of the Oklahoma
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Results Are for Rogers County. Some Numbers May Be Pre-Provisional and May Be Off by a Few Votes, but Do Not Affect the Overall Results in Any Significant Way
    Note: All results are for Rogers County. Some numbers may be pre-provisional and may be off by a few votes, but do not affect the overall results in any significant way. Source: Rogers County Election Board Archive 2010 Election Cycle Voter Turnout for Democratic Primary Election – July 27, 2010 5,990 Voted/21,913 Registered = 27.34% Oklahoma Gubernatorial Democratic Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Jari Askins Drew Edmondson 2,798 3,129 Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Democratic Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Susan Paddack Jerry Combrink 4,357 1,267 U.S. Senate Class 3 Seat Democratic Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Jim Rogers Mark Myles 3,949 1,521 U.S. House of Representative District 2 Democratic Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Jim Wilson Dan Boren 1,224 3,723 District Attorney, District 12 Democratic Primary – July 27, 2010 Janice Steidley Patrick Abitbol 3,774 2,078 Rogers County Assessor Democratic Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Chris Whipkey Brian Wilson 1,458 4,145 Rogers County Commissioner District 3 Democratic Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Joe Frank Clark Scott Gouard Leon Hershberger 370 873 828 Voter Turnout for Republican Primary Election – July 27, 2010 7,228 Voted/23,407 Registered = 30.88% Oklahoma Gubernatorial Republican Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Randy Brogdon Robert L. Jackson Mary Fallin Robert Hubbard 4,249 127 2,597 186 Oklahoma Lieutenant Gubernatorial Republican Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Bernie Adler John A. Wright Todd Lamb Paul F. Nosak Bill Crozier 373 1,176 3,986 823 361 Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector Republican Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Gary Jones David Hanigar 4,323 1,983 Oklahoma Attorney General Republican Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Ryan Leonard Scott Pruitt 2,387 4,477 Oklahoma State Treasurer Republican Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Ken Miller Owen Laughlin 4,078 2,519 Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Republican Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Janet Barresi Brian S.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • New Mexico District Court Self Help Guide
    NEW MEXICO DISTRICT COURT SELF HELP GUIDE Rev. December 2015 NM District Court Self Help Guide, December 2015 Page 1 of 29 The most current version of this guide is available at: http://www.nmcourts.gov/cgi/prose_lib/ NEW MEXICO DISTRICT COURT SELF HELP GUIDE Table of Contents Topic Page A. Representing Yourself – Basic Information 3 B. Domestic Violence 9 C. Dissolution of Marriage 13 D. Kinship Guardianship 15 E. Name Change 18 F. Probate 21 G. Appeals 24 H. Resource List 26 NM District Court Self Help Guide, December 2015 Page 2 of 29 The most current version of this guide is available at: http://www.nmcourts.gov/cgi/prose_lib/ REPRESENTING YOURSELF – BASIC INFORMATION This information guide is general in nature and is not designed to give legal advice. The court does not guarantee the legal sufficiency of this information guide or that it meets your specific needs. Because the law is constantly changing, this guide may not be current. Therefore, you may wish to seek the advice and assistance of an attorney. WHO THIS GUIDE IS INTENDED TO HELP This guide is intended to help individuals who are representing themselves, either as a plaintiff/petitioner or a defendant/respondent in a civil lawsuit or a domestic matter filed in a New Mexico State District Court. That means this guide is not intended to be used for any other type of court, including Metropolitan Court, Magistrate Court or Municipal Court. It does not have information about appeals from these courts. It is not to be used by defendants in a criminal case.
    [Show full text]
  • Sullivan-Leshin, Isaac, PRC
    Sullivan-Leshin, Isaac, PRC From: Sullivan-Leshin, Isaac, PRC Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:44 PM To: Records, PRC, PRC Subject: 21-00095-UT; Filing Submission Attachments: 21-00095-UT, Final Order.pdf IN THE MATTER OF NEW MEXICO GAS COMPANY, INC.’S ) APPLICATION FOR AN EXPEDITED VARIANCE APPROVING ITS PLAN ) CASE NO. 21‐00095‐UT FOR RECOVERY OF THE GAS COSTS RELATED TO THE 2021 WINTER ) EVENT ) Please file the attached FINAL ORDER into the above captioned case. Thank you, Isaac Sullivan‐Leshin Paralegal for Office of General Counsel New Mexico Public Regulation Commission PO Box 1269 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504‐1269 isaac.sullivan‐[email protected] Phone: (505) 670‐4830 1 BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF NEW MEXICO GAS COMPANY, ) INC.’S APPLICATION FOR AN EXPEDITED VARIANCE ) CASE NO. 21-00095-UT APPROVING ITS PLAN FOR RECOVERY OF THE GAS ) COSTS RELATED TO THE 2021 WINTER EVENT ) FINAL ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (“NMPRC” or the “Commission”) on New Mexico Gas Company Inc.’s (“NMGC”) April 16, 2021 Application (“Application”) for Expedited Approval of a Variance Approving its Plan for Recovery of 2021 Winter Event Gas Costs Under the Extraordinary Circumstances Provision of 17.10.640.14. WHEREUPON, being duly informed, THE COMMISSION FINDS AND CONCLUDES: NMCG’S APPLICATION: NMGC’s Application, supported by the direct testimonies of Ryan A. Shell, Joshua J. Tilbury and Daniel P. Yardley, seeks approval of NMGC’s Plan for Recovery of its 2021 Winter Event Gas Costs under the Extraordinary Circumstances Provision of 17.10.640.14 NMAC.
    [Show full text]
  • In the District Court of Oklahoma County State of Oklahoma
    IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA CALL FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE, on behalf of itself and its members; TULSA WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE CLINIC, LLC, on behalf of itself, its physicians, its staff, and its patients; ALAN BRAID, M.D., on behalf of himself and his patients; COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT PLAINS, INC., on behalf of itself, its physicians, its staff, and its patients; and PLANNED CASE NO. ____________ PARENTHOOD OF ARKANSAS & EASTERN OKLAHOMA, on behalf of itself, its physicians, its staff, and its patients, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN O’CONNOR, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma; DAVID PRATER, in his official capacity as District Attorney for Oklahoma County; STEVE KUNZWEILER, in his official capacity as District Attorney for Tulsa County; LYLE KELSEY, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision; KATIE TEMPLETON, in her official capacity as President of the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners; LANCE FRYE, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Oklahoma State Board of Health; and JUSTIN WILSON, in his official capacity as the President of the Oklahoma State Board of Pharmacy; as well as their employees, agents, and successors, Defendants. VERIFIED PETITION Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned attorneys, bring this Petition against the above- named Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office, and in support thereof allege the following: I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. “Every woman in this country has a constitutionally protected right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy before viability.” Burns v.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States
    Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States Composition of the Supreme Court Tuesday, July 20, 2021 Written Statement of Marin K. Levy Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law Co-Chair Bauer, Co-Chair Rodriguez, and distinguished members of the Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of Supreme Court expansion and composition. By way of background, I am a Professor of Law at the Duke University School of Law and a faculty advisor to the Bolch Judicial Institute. My research and teaching over the past twelve years have focused on judicial administration and appellate courts. It is a distinct honor and privilege to speak with you on these matters. Court expansion and other changes to the Court’s composition implicate fundamental questions about the role and operation of our nation’s highest court. These include whether expanding the Court would harm the institution’s legitimacy, whether expansion would prompt a series of expansions in the future, whether an expanded Court could function well as a single decision-making body, and whether expansion would contradict existing constitutional norms and conventions. Even if the answers to these questions were known, there is a larger background question to be answered—namely how such considerations should be weighted in assessing any proposal to change the Court’s structure. It is no easy task that the Commission has been given, and I hope that the legal community and public at large is cognizant of this. In contrast to the subject of the panel, my own testimony will be fairly circumscribed.
    [Show full text]
  • Engrossed Senate
    ENROLLED SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 59 By: Laster and Jolley of the Senate and Liotta, Hyman and McMullen of the House A Concurrent Resolution recognizing that due to an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling certain pending legislation is unnecessary; and directing distribution. WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (2005) caused widespread concern among Oklahoma citizens concerning the protection of private property rights from governmental takings for economic development by use of eminent domain; and WHEREAS, Oklahoma constitutional and statutory authority appeared to protect Oklahoma citizens from a result similar to that which occurred in Connecticut in the Kelo case, though there was previously no definitive Oklahoma Supreme Court case on point; and WHEREAS, numerous members of the Oklahoma Senate and House of Representatives introduced legislation intended to address citizens’ concerns raised by the Kelo case, and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2006, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in County Commissioners of Muskogee County v. Lowery, 2006 OK 31 (Okla. 2006), clearly holding and affirming that Oklahoma’s Constitution and existing statutes already prohibit government from using eminent domain to take private property solely for economic development; and WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s opinion in Lowery establishes clear precedent that private economic development can never constitute sole justification for governmental exercise of eminent domain in Oklahoma. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 50TH OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONCURRING THEREIN: THAT the Oklahoma Legislature applauds the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s Lowery decision as confirming that the result that occurred in the Kelo case cannot happen under Oklahoma law.
    [Show full text]
  • Note: All Results Are for Rogers County
    Note: All results are for Rogers County. Some numbers may be pre-provisional and may be off by a few votes, but do not affect the overall results in any significant way. Source: Rogers County Election Board Archive 1994 Election Cycle Voter Turnout for Special Election for County Question – February 9, 1993 6,616 Voted/41,639 Registered = 15.89% County Question Approving the Extension of a 1% Sales Tax for the Maintenance and Construction of County Roads until 1998 – February 9, 1993 Yes No 4,531 2,048 Voter Turnout for Special Election for SQ No. 659 – February 8, 1994 3,762 Voted/36,404 Registered = 10.33% SQ No. 659: Makes Local School Millage Levies Permanent until Repealed by Voters– February 8, 1994 Yes No 2,295 1,330 Voter Turnout for Special Election for SQ No. 658 – May 10, 1994 12,566 Voted/36,754 Registered = 34.19% SQ No. 658: Approval of a State Lottery with Specifics on How Funds Would Be Controlled – May 10, 1994 Yes No 5,291 7,272 Voter Turnout for Democratic Primary Election – August 23, 1994 7,678 Voted/23,936 Registered = 32.08% Oklahoma Gubernatorial Democratic Primary Results – August 23, 1994 Jack Mildren Danny Williams Bernice Shedrick Joe Vickers 3,284 646 3,312 305 Oklahoma Lieutenant Gubernatorial Democratic Primary Results – August 23, 1994 Dave McBride Walt Roberts Nance Diamond Bob Cullison 1,130 426 2,685 3,183 Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector Democratic Primary Results – August 23, 1994 Clifton H. Scott Allen Greeson 4,989 1,956 Oklahoma Attorney General Democratic Primary Results – August 23, 1994 John B.
    [Show full text]
  • Tobacco Use Prevention and Cessation Advisory Committee
    Minutes September 10, 2002 Oklahoma State Department of Health 1000 N.E. 10th, Room 806 Oklahoma City, OK Members Present: Richard Barnes, Larry Didier (designee for Dr. Terry Cline), Dr. Frank Collins, Gary Davidson, Sue Ellis, Nancy Kabriel (designee for Sandy Garrett), Robin Gurwitch, Lynne Kennedy, Dr. Mike Morgan, Jacqueline Myles, Dr. Sheila Simpson, Dr. Gary Watson, and Koorosh Zahrai. Members Absent: Dr. Leslie Beitsch, Dr. Matthew Britt, Sherry Bynum, Lacey Masterson, Sallie McLaughlin, Mike Thornbrugh, and Dr. Francene Weatherby. Governor’s Task Force on Tobacco & Youth Members Present: Richard Barnes, Steve Brown, Mike Crutcher, Gary Davidson, Kay Floyd, Joy Leuthard (designee for Brian Foy), Nancy Kabriel (designee for Sandy Garrett), Larry Didier (designee for Terry Cline), Lynette McLain, Bob Miner, Mike Morgan, Missy Dean (designee for Carolyn Stager), Flossie Thurston, Duc M. Tu, and Raymond Vaughn, Jr. Visitors: Jayne Clarke (Lung Cancer Institute of Oklahoma), Brenda Peters (NATCO), LaDonna BlueEye (NATCO), Tracey Strader (Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund), and Charles Broadway (OSDH Legal). OSDH Staff Present: Doug Matheny, Pam Charboneau, Janet Love, Joyce Morris, Debra Shandy, Linda Wright-Eakers, and Jennifer Wilson. Dr. Mike Morgan called the meeting to order. Due to the unusual nature of the joint meeting, Dr. Mike Morgan asked that everyone present introduce themselves. Dr. Morgan stated that Tracey Strader had accepted a new position as the Executive Director of the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund. Doug Matheny mentioned that Ms. Strader’s last day with the Tobacco Use Prevention Service had been August 9th and the paperwork for formal approval to hire a replacement had been delayed due to the state budget situation.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New Mexico V. Del E. Romero V. Mathew Gutierrez.On Petition For
    No. 06-765 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Petitioner, v. DEL E. ROMERO and MATTHEW GUTIERREZ, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the New Mexico Supreme Court BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF RESPONDENT DEL E. ROMERO Richard W. Hughes Counsel of Record ROTHSTEIN, DONATELLI, HUGHES, DAHLSTROM, SCHOENBURG & BIENVENU, LLP P.O. Box 8180 1215 Paseo de Peralta Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Tel. (505) 988-8004 Laurel A. Knowles Assistant Appellate Defender 301 North Guadalupe Street, Suite 101 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-5502 Tel.: (505) 827-3909 Counsel for Respondent Del Romero TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................. ii SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................1 ARGUMENT ................................................................1 I. THE DECISION BELOW IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ANY DECISION OF THIS COURT OR ANY APPELLATE COURT ON THE ISSUE PRESENTED ....................................................1 II. THE NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT PUEBLO GRANT LANDS ARE “DEPENDENT INDIAN COMMUNITIES,” AND THUS INDIAN COUNTRY, UNDER THE VENETIE ANALYSIS, AND THAT THAT STATUS HAS NEVER BEEN DIMINISHED BY CONGRESS .....................................3 A. The History of Federal Authority Over Pueblo Lands Demonstrates Their Indian Country Status .................................3 B. This Court’s Ruling in Venetie Confirmed that Pueblo Lands are “Dependent Indian Communities.” ............................7 C. Pueblo Land Grants Are Equivalent to Reservations, and Were Not Diminished by the PLA .....................................10 III. CONGRESS’ RECENT AMENDMENT OF THE PUEBLO LANDS ACT CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATES THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION BELOW, AND RENDERS THE STATE’S PETITION ACADEMIC ....................................................14 CONCLUSION .............................................................20 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 522 U.S.
    [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]
  • FY-08 Legislative Appropriations
    Oklahoma House of Representatives FY‐08 Legislative Appropriations Centennial Edition Fiscal Year 2008 Legislative Appropriations Oklahoma House of Representatives Speaker Lance Cargill Appropriations and Budget Committee Representative Chris Benge, Chairman Representative Ken Miller, Vice Chair July, 2007 Prepared by: House Fiscal Staff Committee and Subcommittee Membership Appropriations and Budget Committee Chris Benge, Chair Ken Miller, Vice Chair John Auffet Guy Liebmann John Carey Bill Nations James Covey Randy Terrill Shane Jett Revenue & Taxation Subcommittee Randy Terrill, Chair Danny Morgan, Vice Chair Dale DeWitt Richard Morrissette Joe Dorman Earl Sears Tad Jones Rules Committee Shane Jett, Chair Bill Nations, Vice Chair James Covey Ryan Kiesel Joe Dorman Greg Piatt Rob Johnson Trebor Worthen Tad Jones Elections & Redistricting Subcommittee Trebor Worthen, Chair Purcy Walker, Vice Chair Dennis Adkins Randy Terrill Ryan McMullen Page i Education Committee Tad Jones, Chair Todd Thomsen, Vice Chair Neil Brannon Sally Kern Ann Coody Ray McCarter Doug Cox Jeannie McDaniel David Dank Eric Proctor Lee Denney Phil Richardson Joe Dorman Jabar Shumate Terry Hyman Dan Sullivan Terry Ingmire Common Education Subcommittee Ann Coody, Chair Neil Brannon, Vice Chair Ed Cannaday Weldon Watson Dale DeWitt Susan Winchester Ray McCarter Higher Education & Career Tech Subcommittee Terry Ingmire, Chair David Derby, Vice Chair Terry Hyman Pam Peterson Charlie Joyner Jabar Shumate Bill Nations Arts & Culture Subcommittee Lee Denney, Chair Ben Sherrer,
    [Show full text]