DOCSLIB.ORG

Document 61 Replaced on 5/23/2018) (Cak)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Document 61 Replaced on 5/23/2018) (Cak) No. 19-309 In the Supreme Court of the United States ———— GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE, PETITIONER v. JAMES R. ADAMS, RESPONDENT ———— ON CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ———— JOINT APPENDIX ———— MICHAEL W. MCCONNELL DAVID L. FINGER Counsel of Record Counsel of Record for Petitioner for Respondent STEFFEN N. JOHNSON Finger & Slanina, LLC BRIAN J. LEVY One Commerce Center G. EDWARD POWELL III 201 N. Orange St., 7th fl. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Wilmington, DE 19801 Rosati, PC (302) 573-2525 1700 K Street, N.W. [email protected] Washington, DC 20006 (202) 973-8800 [email protected] RANDY J. HOLLAND Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC 222 Delaware Avenue Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 304-7600 [Additional Counsel Listed On Inside Cover] PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 CERTIORARI GRANTED DECEMBER 6, 2019 DAVID C. MCBRIDE MARTIN S. LESSNER PILAR G. KRAMAN Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP Rodney Square 1000 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 571-6600 Counsel for Petitioner i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Relevant Docket Entries: Adams v. Carney, No. 1:17-cv-00181-MPT .......................................... 1 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Relevant Docket Entries: Adams v. Governor of Delaware, No. 18-1045 ................... 9 First Amended Complaint, dated April 10, 2017 ....................................................... 15 Appendix re: Opening Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by John Carney, dated September 29, 2017 ..................... 27 Deposition Transcript of James R. Adams and Exhibits ......................................................... 29 Response to First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Plaintiff.............................................. 57 Voter Registration Card of James Robert Adams ................................................................... 67 Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Delaware, Volume II ........................................ 68 House Bill No. 581, 129th Gen. Assembly, June 30, 1977 .................................... 128 Senate Bill No. 296, 132nd Gen. Assembly, June 7, 1983 ...................................... 131 Senate Bill No. 61, 143rd Gen. Assembly, March 24, 2005 ................................. 135 ii Judicial Vacancy Announcements ..................... 144 Judgment Order, dated December 6, 2017 ............. 165 Memorandum Opinion Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dated December 6, 2017 ..................................... 166 Defendant’s Notice of Appeal, dated January 5, 2018 .................................................. 183 Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Stay District Court Judgment Pending Appeal, dated June 12, 2018 ........................................... 186 Defendant’s Amended Notice of Appeal, dated June 20, 2018 ........................................... 190 Memorandum Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration and Granting Defendant’s Motion to Stay Judgment, dated June 25, 2018......................... 193 Addendum to Defendant-Appellant’s Opening Brief in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, dated July 18, 2018 .............. 208 Order Granting Writ of Certiorari, dated December 6, 2019 ............................................... 228 iii NOTICE *The following opinions, decisions, judgments, and orders have been omitted in printing the joint appendix because they appear on the following pages to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari: Third Circuit Court Precedential Opinion, dated April 10, 2019 .............. Pet. App. 1a Third Circuit Court Judgment, dated April 10, 2019 ........................... Pet. App. 42a Third Circuit Court Order Denying Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, dated May 7, 2019 .............................. Pet. App. 44a Delaware District Court Memorandum Order, Denying the Motion for Reconsideration and Granting the Motion for Clarification, dated May 23, 2017 ...................................... Pet. App. 46a Delaware District Court Memorandum Opinion Clarifying (and Restating in Large Part) its December 6, 2017 Memorandum Opinion, dated May 23, 2017 ............. Pet. App. 61a Delaware District Court Order Granting Judgment to Defendant, dated May 23, 2017 ............................ Pet. App. 83a 1 U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE (WILMINGTON) ———— Civil Docket for Case #: 1:17-cv-00181-MPT ———— JAMES R. ADAMS, v. HONORABLE JOHN CARNEY Governor of the State of Delaware ———— RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS 02/21/2017 1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - filed against John Carney – Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0311-2088398.) - filed by James R. Adams. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(rwc) (Entered: 02/21/2017) * * * 03/21/2017 6 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter - filed by John Carney. Motions refer- red to Mary Pat Thynge.(Sabesan, Roopa) (Entered: 03/21/2017) 03/21/2017 7 OPENING BRIEF in Support re 6 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter filed by John Carney.Answering 2 Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 4/4/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate of Service) (Sabesan, Roopa) (Entered: 03/21/2017) * * * 04/10/2017 10 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against John Carney- filed by James R. Adarns.(Finger, David) (Entered: 04/10/2017) 04/17/2017 11 ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re 6 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter filed by James R. Adams.Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 4/24/2017. (Finger, David) (Entered: 04/17/2017) * * * 04/25/2017 14 ORDER: With the filing of the Answer to the Amended Complaint 13, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject jurisdiction 6 is rendered moot. Signed by Judge Mary Pat Thynge on 4/25/17. (cak) (Entered: 04/25/2017) * * * 09/29/2017 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment - filed by John Carney. (Connell, Ryan) (Entered: 09/29/2017) 09/29/2017 29 OPENING BRIEF in Support re 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by John Carney.Answering Brief/Response due date per Local 3 Rules is 10/13/2017. (Connell, Ryan) (Entered: 09/29/2017) 09/29/2017 30 APPENDIX re 29 Opening Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by John Carney. (Connell, Ryan) (Entered: 09/29/2017) 09/29/2017 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment - filed by James R. Adams. (Finger, David) (Entered: 09/29/2017) 09/29/2017 32 OPENING BRIEF in Support re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by James R. Adams.Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 10/13/2017. (Finger, David) (Entered: 09/29/2017) * * * 10/13/2017 34 ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re 31 MOTION for Summary Judg- ment filed by John Carney.Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 10/20/2017. (Connell, Ryan) (Entered: 10/13/2017) 10/13/2017 35 ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re 28 MOTION for Summary Judg- ment , 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by James R. Adams.Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 10/20/2017. (Finger, David) (Entered: 10/13/2017) * * * 4 10/23/2017 37 REPLY BRIEF re 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by John Carney. (Connell, Ryan) (Entered: 10/23/2017) 10/23/2017 38 REPLY BRIEF re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by James R. Adams. (Finger, David) (Entered: 10/23/2017) 12/06/2017 39 ORDER denying 28 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 31 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Mary Pat Thynge on 12/6/17. (cak) (Entered: 12/06/2017) 12/06/2017 40 MEMORANDUM OPINION grant- ing plaintiffs motion for summary judgment 31 and denying defend- ant’s motion for summary judgment 28. Signed by Judge Mary Pat Thynge on 12/6/17. (cak) (Entered: 12/06/2017) * * * 12/20/2017 42 MOTION for Reconsideration re 40 Memorandum Opinion, 39 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, - filed by John Carney. (Connell, Ryan) (Entered: 12/20/2017) 12/21/2017 43 RESPONSE to Motion re 42 MOTION for Reconsideration re 40 Memorandum Opinion, 39 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by James R. Adams. (Finger, David) (Entered: 12/21/2017) 5 * * * 12/28/2017 49 REPLY to Response to Motion re 42 MOTION for Reconsideration re 40 Memorandum Opinion, 39 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by John Carney. (McBride, David) (Entered: 12/28/2017) 01/05/2018 50 NOTICE OF APPEAL of 40 Memo- randum Opinion, 39 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, . Appeal filed by John Carney. (Kraman, Pilar) (Entered: 01/05/2018) * * * 02/21/2018 57 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Defendant the Hon. John Carney Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court and for Expedited Consider- ation - filed by James R. Adams. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D)(Finger, David) Modified on 3/8/2018 (cak). (Entered: 02/21/2018) 03/07/2018 58 RESPONSE to Motion re 57 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Defend- ant the Hon. John Carney Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court and for Expedited Consideration filed by John Carney. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(McBride, David) Modified on 3/8/2018 (cak). (Entered: 03/07/2018) * * * 6 03/13/2018 59 REPLY BRIEF re 57 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Defendant the Hon. John Carney Sholuld Not Be Held in Contempt of Court and for Expedited Consideration filed by James R. Adams. (Finger, David) (Entered: 03/13/2018) 05/23/2018 60 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 41 MOTION for Attorney Fees /For an Award of Fees and Costs Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) filed by James R. Adams, 51 MOTION to Defer Ruling on Attorney’s Fees and Costs Pending Appeal 41 MOTION for Attorney Fees /For an Award of Fees and Costs Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) filed by John Carney, 57 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Defendant the Hon. John Carney Should Not Be Held in. Contempt of Court and for Expedited Consideration filed by James R. Adams, 42 MOTION for Reconsid- eration re 40 Memorandum Opinion, 39 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by John Carney.
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]
  • Reclaiming Fiduciary Law for the City
    Stanford Law Review Volume 70 February 2018 ARTICLE Reclaiming Fiduciary Law for the City Max Schanzenbach & Nadav Shoked* Abstract. Modern law sets “public” local government law apart from “private” business entities law. Although intuitive, this distinction ignores legal history and, even more troublingly, the contemporary practices of local governments. Due to distressed finances and a political atmosphere favoring privatization, present-day cities routinely engage in sophisticated market transactions typical of private business entities. Current law fails to adequately address this reality. Because cities are deemed public, courts do not analyze their transactions for compliance with the fiduciary duties private law imposes to ensure sound management. Major city transactions thus evade meaningful review. This Article addresses this worrisome anomaly by demonstrating that the city’s supposed public nature need not interfere with the application of fiduciary duties to its market transactions. To the contrary, this Article shows that the fiduciary status of city officials is supported—indeed, necessitated—by U.S. law’s history, structure, and normative logic. This Article also devises the appropriate fiduciary duty of care—or sound management— that courts should apply to city officials. It advocates requiring local decisionmakers to abide by certain processes of informed decisionmaking before selling major municipal assets. As primarily a procedural, nonsubstantive test, such a standard would not constrain the political discretion of local officials and could readily be applied by courts. * Max Schanzenbach is the Seigle Family Professor of Law at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. Nadav Shoked is an Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • State and Federal Courts—Relationship and Interaction by John Pizzo
    Chapter 6 State and Federal Courts—Relationship and Interaction by John Pizzo Chapter Outline I. State and Federal Courts—Composition and Authority A. State Courts B. Federal Courts 1. Article III Courts 2. Other Federal Courts 3. Jurisdiction II. Dual Sovereignty and Concurrent Jurisdiction C. Dual Sovereignty D. Concurrent Jurisdiction III. Removal and Remand E. A Defendant’s Right of Removal F. A Plaintiff’s Ability to Remand IV. Federal Courts Applying State Law G. The Erie Doctrine and Choice of Law H. Certified Questions 77 Readings on the American Judical System V. Comity and Abstention I. Unclear Questions of State Law 1. Pullman Abstention Doctrine 2. Burford Abstention Doctrine J. Unnecessary Interference with Pending State Proceedings 1. Younger Abstention Doctrine 2. Rooker–Feldman Abstention Doctrine K. Avoiding Duplicative Litigation 1. Colorado River Abstention Doctrine VI. Conclusion VII. Endnotes his chapter will discuss the interplay between the state and federal court system. Beginning with a brief overview of the limited jurisdiction afforded federal courts, the chapter will move on to discuss Thow the two systems conflict and cooperate—depending on the particular situation. The chapter intends to explore several main areas. It will discuss the practice, including the bases and processes, of removing cases from state court to federal court and the reverse process of remanding them back to state court. The chapter will also examine when and why federal courts must apply state law, including when it is necessary to certify questions to state courts. Lastly, it will survey the various abstention doctrines and the underlying reasons federal courts invoke them, as well as the somewhat related concept of dual sovereignty.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File, Please Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. ------------~ .-------------~,' .. \. JUN 221978 . ACQUiS1TIOi\lS, "-. MISDEMEANOR COURT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH PROGRAM PART I A Joint Project of: The American Judicature Society and The Institute for Court Management This project was supported by Grant Number 76-NI-99-0114 awarded by the Law Enforcement Assist­ ance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice under Title Iof the Crime Control Act of 1973, Pub­ Law 93-83. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reIJresent the official positior/or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. June 1978 PROJECT STAFF Co-Project Directors: Harvey Solomon Allan Ashman Training and Workshop Coordinator: H. Ted Rubin Research Coordinator: James J. Alfini Research Attorneys: Charles Grau Karen Knab Training and Workshop Associate: Tom Cameron Research Associates= Rachel Doan John Ryan Special Consultant: Maureen Solomon Administrative Assistant: Susan Mauer Secretary: Patricia Bradley Research Assistants: Bren t Lindberg Jane Lynk Joseph Markowitz Mark Oldenburg Susan Thomson ADVI~.;ORY COMMITTEE Jerome S. Berg Director Administrative Office of the Massachusetts District Courts Honorable Dorothy Binder Judge Adams County Court Brighton, Colorado Honorable T. Patrick Corbett Judge King County Superior Court Seattle, Washington Professor Elmer K. Nelson School of Public Administration University of Southern California Sacramento, California Honorable Robert Wenke Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Los Angeless California Charles R. Work, Esquire Peabody, RivEn, Lambert & Meyers Washington, D. C. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface •. viii Introduction ix CHAPTER I: The Misdemeanor Courts A. Introduction....... 1 B.
    [Show full text]
  • ICLG Litigation & Dispute Resolution 2017
    ICLGThe International Comparative Legal Guide to: Litigation & Dispute Resolution 2017 10th Edition A practical cross-border insight into litigation and dispute resolution work Published by Global Legal Group, in association with CDR, with contributions from: ARNECKE SIBETH Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater Lennox Paton Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB Loyens & Loeff Luxembourg S.à.r.l. Axioma Estudio Legal Makarim & Taira S. Bae, Kim & Lee LLC McCann FitzGerald Bär & Karrer Ltd. Miller & Chevalier Chartered Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu BROSETA Norburg & Scherp Advokatbyrå AB Clayton Utz Oblin Melichar Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc Polenak Law Firm Covington & Burling LLP Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Quevedo & Ponce Gün + Partners Richman Greer, P.A. Gürlich & Co. Rogério Alves & Associados – Sociedade de Advogados, R.L. Hamdan AlShamsi Lawyers & Legal Consultants Sam Okudzeto & Associates Holland & Knight LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Jackson Walker LLP Souto, Correa, Cesa, Lummertz & Amaral Advogados Kammeradvokaten, Law Firm Poul Schmith Sysouev, Bondar, Khrapoutski SBH Law Office Kentuadei Adefe, Legal Practitioners, Mediators & Arbitrators Waselius & Wist Kobre & Kim Zamfirescu Racoţi & Partners Attorneys at Law Kubas Kos Gałkowski CCommercialD DisputeR Resolution The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Litigation & Dispute Resolution 2017 General Chapter: 1 Cybersecurity – Greg Lascelles & Salah Mattoo, Covington & Burling LLP 1 Country Question and Answer Chapters:
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Delaware Corporate Law: Section 115 and Its Underlying Ramifications Andrew Holt [email protected]
    American University Business Law Review Volume 5 | Issue 2 Article 2 2016 Protecting Delaware Corporate Law: Section 115 And Its Underlying Ramifications Andrew Holt [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aublr Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons, Civil Procedure Commons, and the Commercial Law Commons Recommended Citation Holt, Andrew "Protecting Delaware Corporate Law: Section 115 And Its Underlying Ramifications," American University Business Law Review, Vol. 5, No. 2 () . Available at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aublr/vol5/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Business Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROTECTING DELAWARE CORPORATE LAW: SECTION 115 AND ITS UNDERLYING RAMIFICATIONS ANDREW HOLT* "7 do not discern an overarching public policy of this State that prevents boards of directors of Delaware corporationsfrom adopting bylaws to require stockholders to litigate intra-corporatedisputes in a foreign jurisdiction."/ - ChancellorAndre G. Bouchard Introduction ................................................................................................20 9 II. Delaware and Internal Forum Selection Clauses ..................................211
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware Eduardo
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EDUARDO ALVARADO § CHAVERRI, et al., § No. 519, 2019 § Plaintiffs Below, § Court Below: Superior Court of Appellants, § the State of Delaware § v. § C.A. No. N12C-06-017 § DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., et § al., § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. § Submitted: October 14, 2020 Decided: January 12, 2021 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices, constituting the Court en banc. Upon appeal from the Superior Court. AFFIRMED. Scott M. Hendler, Esquire (Argued), and Rebecca Webber, Esquire, Hendler Flores, PLLC, Austin, TX, and Andrew C. Dalton, Esquire, Dalton and Associates, P.A., Wilmington, DE, for Appellants. Andrea E. Neuman, Esquire (Argued), Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, William E. Thomson, Esquire, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, and Jennifer C. Wasson, Esquire, and Stephanie E. O’Byrne, Esquire, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE, for Appellees, Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Standard Fruit Company, and Standard Fruit & Steamship Company. Boaz S. Morag, Esquire, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, NY, and James W. Semple, Esquire, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE, for Appellee Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc. Adam V. Orlacchio, Esquire, and Brandon W. McCune, Esquire, Blank Rome LLP, Wilmington, DE, for Appellees, Chiquita Brands International, Inc., Chiquita Brands L.L.C., and Chiquita Fresh North America L.L.C. Michael L. Brem, Esquire, Schirrmeister Diaz-Arrastia Brem LLP, Houston, TX, and Ryan D. Stottman, Esquire, and Barnaby Grzaslewicz, Esquire, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, for Appellee, The Dow Chemical Company.
    [Show full text]
  • Extraterritorial Courts for Corporate Law
    EXTRATERRITORIAL COURTS FOR CORPORATE LAW Jens Dammann and Henry Hansmann1 August 2005 Jens Dammann Cornell Law School Myron Taylor Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 [email protected] Henry Hansmann Yale Law School P.O. Box 208215 New Haven, CT 06520-8215 [email protected] 1 Dammann is Assistant Professor at the University of Texas School of Law. Hansmann is Augustus E. Lines Professor of Law at Yale Law School. This essay was first presented at the Conference on EU Corporate Law-Making in Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 29-30, 2004. For valuable discussions and comments the authors are grateful to the participants in that conference, to Akhil Amar, Kevin Clermont, Owen Fiss, Gary Simson, and Richard Squire, and to workshop participants at Columbia Law School and Yale Law School. Dammann & Hansmann, Extraterritorial Courts P. 2 Abstract A central goal in devising a system of courts is to make judicial services easily accessible. As a consequence, justice is usually administered in a geographically decentralized fashion: trial courts are distributed across the territory in which the jurisdiction’s law is applied. Corporate law, however, does not fit this pattern: courts are often located far away from the companies subject to their jurisdiction. In particular, Delaware law governs most publicly-traded firms in the U.S., and is now extending its reach to encompass corporations headquartered around the globe. But Delaware courts are located only in Delaware. Consequently, there is a large and growing disparity between the geographic area where Delaware law is applied and the location of Delaware courts. This disparity is all the more striking because the quality of the Delaware judiciary is a prime reason why firms incorporate under Delaware law.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of the Board of Bar Examiners of the State of Delaware
    RULES OF THE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE I. STRUCTURE AND SCOPE OF BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS Rule 1. Duties and powers of the Board. Supreme Court Rules 51 through 55 are incorporated herein by reference. The Board shall have the duties and powers set forth in Supreme Court Rule 51 and it shall also have the power to institute and defend actions in its name in any court of competent jurisdiction and to take such other and further action as the Board deems prudent and necessary to fulfill its duties and responsibilities. Rule 2. Officers and Members. (a) Chair and Members. The Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Board and, if applicable, the Secretary and Assistant Secretary, and Members-Elect, shall be appointed by the Supreme Court in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 51. (b) Associate Members. Associate Members of the Board may be appointed by the Supreme Court to assist the Members in fulfilling their duties and responsibilities; provided, however, that Associate Members shall not have the power to vote with respect to any determination or decision of the Board. (c) Compensation and expenses. Members, Members-Elect and Associate Members shall receive no compensation for their services but may be reimbursed for travel and other expenses incidental to the performance of their duties, if authorized by the Board. Rule 3. Abstention of Board Members. Members shall refrain from taking part in any meeting, hearing or portion thereof in which a judge, similarly situated, would be required to abstain and shall only be considered “disqualified” for the purposes of that meeting, hearing or portion thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Constitutional Standing in State Courts
    Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law Volume 8 Issue 2 Article 5 2015 A Survey of Constitutional Standing in State Courts Wyatt Sassman Southern Environmental Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjeanrl Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Sassman, Wyatt (2015) "A Survey of Constitutional Standing in State Courts," Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law: Vol. 8 : Iss. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjeanrl/vol8/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A SURVEY OF CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING IN STATE COURTS Wyatt Sassman" State courts sometimes limit their power to adjudicate cases according to constitutional standing requirements adopted by federal courts under Article III of the United States Constitution. Why? State courts are not governed by Article III, and as courts of general, rather than limited, jurisdiction, play a different role than federal courts. This Article surveys recent decisions of the fifty states and District of Columbia to answer three questions: (1) does the state apply constitutional standing requirements similar to the federal courts; (2) if so, what is the state's rationale for applying constitutional standing requirements; and (3) does the state recognize any exceptions to its constitutional standing requirements? The Article presents its results in terms of majority and minority positions, finding that: (1) a majority of states apply constitutional standing, but only a minority of those states adopt the controlling federal test articulated in Lujan v.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Trends in State Courts 2010 Special Feature on International Courts
    Future Trends in State Courts 2010 Special Feature on International Courts A nonprofi t organization improving justice through leadership and service to courts Board of Directors, National Center for State Courts Christine M. Durham, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Utah, Chair Steven C. Hollon, Administrative Director, Supreme Court of Ohio, Vice Chair Wallace B. Jefferson, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Texas, Chair-elect Lilia G. Judson, Executive Director, Division of State Court Administration, Indiana Supreme Court, Vice Chair-elect Mary Campbell McQueen, President, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia Daniel J. Becker, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Utah George S. Frazza, Esq., Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, New York Rosalyn W. Frierson, State Court Administrator, South Carolina Court Administration Richard C. Godfrey, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, Illinois Eileen A. Kato, Judge, King County District Court, Washington Rufus G. King III, Senior Judge, Superior Court of District of Columbia Dale R. Koch, Senior Judge, Circuit Court, Oregon Brenda S. Loftin, Associate Circuit Judge, St. Louis County Circuit Court, Missouri Margaret H. Marshall, Chief Justice, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Charles W. Matthews, Jr., Vice President & General Counsel, ExxonMobil Corporation, Irving, Texas Mary McCormick, President, Fund for the City of New York Manuel Medrano, Esq., Medrano & Carlton, Los Angeles, California Donna D. Melby, Esq., Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, LLP, Los Angeles, California Edward W. Mullins, Jr., Esq., Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Columbia, South Carolina Barbara R. Mundell, Presiding Judge, Superior Court, Maricopa County, Arizona Theodore B. Olson, Esq., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC Robert S.
    [Show full text]
  • Making a Case for Business Courts: a Survey of and Proposed Framework to Evaluate Business Courts
    Georgia State University Law Review Volume 24 Issue 2 Winter 2007 Article 4 March 2012 Making a Case for Business Courts: A Survey of and Proposed Framework to Evaluate Business Courts Anne Tucker Follow this and additional works at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Anne Tucker, Making a Case for Business Courts: A Survey of and Proposed Framework to Evaluate Business Courts, 24 GA. ST. U. L. REV. (2012). Available at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol24/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at Reading Room. It has been accepted for inclusion in Georgia State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Reading Room. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tucker: Making a Case for Business Courts: A Survey of and Proposed Fram MAKING A CASE FOR BUSINESS COURTS: A SURVEY OF AND PROPOSED FRAMEWORK TO EVALUATE BUSINESS COURTS Anne Tucker Nees*Nees· INTRODUCTION: MAKING A CASE FOR BUSINESS [N]o institution other than the state so dominates our public discourse and our private lives. In our world corporations make most everything we consume. Their advertising and products fill almost every waking moment of our lives. They give us jobs, and sometimes a sense of identity. They define communities, and enhance both our popular and serious culture. They present the investment opportunities that send our children to college, and provide for our old age. They fund our research.research.' I There is no denying that corporations, and all business entities, playplaya a significant role in modem society,2 includingincluding the legal profession.
    [Show full text]