Certificate of Good Standing List of Contacts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING LIST OF CONTACTS This list is provided to assist you in obtaining Certificates of Good Standing from the jurisdictions where you have been admitted to practice. Certificates of Good Standing must include the date of your admission. ALABAMA LOUISIANA OHIO Supreme Court Clerk Louisiana Supreme Court Office of Attorney Services COGS Request Clerk of Court OKLAHOMA ALASKA MAINE Oklahoma Supreme Court Clerk of Appellate Courts Attorney Records Clerk of the Appellate Court Board of Overseers of the Bar ARIZONA OREGON Supreme Court of Arizona MARYLAND Oregon Supreme Court Certification and Licensing Division Court of Appeals of Maryland PENNSYLVANIA ARKANSAS MASSACHUSETTS Supreme Court Supreme Court Clerk Supreme Judicial Court for The County of Suffolk RHODE ISLAND CALIFORNIA Supreme Court Clerk’s Office The State Bar of California MICHIGAN Membership Services Michigan Supreme Court SOUTH CAROLINA Clerk’s Office Supreme Court of South Carolina COLORADO Colorado Supreme Court MINNESOTA SOUTH DAKOTA Office of Attorney Registration Minnesota Supreme Court Supreme Court Clerk’s Office Lawyer Registration Office CONNECTICUT TENNESSEE Clerk of the Superior Court MISSISSIPPI Appellate Court Clerk’s Office Hartford Judicial District Mississippi Supreme Court Supreme Court Clerk’s Office TEXAS DELAWARE Clerk of the Supreme Court Clerk of the Supreme Court MISSOURI Office of the Clerk UTAH DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA of the Supreme Court General Counsel’s Office of the Utah District of Columbia Court of Appeals State Bar MONTANA FLORIDA State Bar of Montana VERMONT Florida Supreme Court Attorney Licensing Clerk’s Office NEBRASKA Clerk of the Nebraska Supreme VIRGINIA GEORGIA Court/Court of Appeals Clerk of the Supreme Court of Virginia State Bar of Georgia Membership/LGS NEVADA WASHINGTON State Bar of Nevada Washington State Supreme Court GUAM Supreme Court of Guam NEW HAMPSHIRE West Virginia New Hampshire Supreme Court Clerk of Supreme Court of Appeals of HAWAII West Virginia Supreme Court of Hawaii NEW JERSEY Office of the Chief Clerk New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners WISCONSIN Clerk of the Supreme Court IDAHO NEW MEXICO Idaho State Bar Supreme Court of the State of New WYOMING Mexico, Office of the Clerk Wyoming Supreme Court ILLINOIS Clerk of Supreme Court of Illinois NEW YORK -Appellate Division, First Judicial INDIANA Department Supreme Court of the Roll of Attorneys Administrator’s Office State of New York, -General Clerk’s Office Appellate IOWA Division, Second Judicial Department Clerk of Supreme Court -Appellate Division, Third Department -Admissions Office Appellate Division, KANSAS Fourth Department Attorney Registration NORTH CAROLINA KENTUCKY North Carolina State Bar Kentucky Bar Association *you must answer “yes” to the question that asks NORTH DAKOTA if you need a certificate of admission in order to North Dakota Supreme Court have the date of admission included. August 2016 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

GUAM RULES of APPELLATE PROCEDURE (As of February 24, 2014)
SUPREME COURT OF GUAM 1 GUAM RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE (as of February 24, 2014) 1 Adopted by the Supreme Court of Guam pursuant to Promulgation Order No. 07-003-01 (Feb. 21, 2007). Amended pursuant to Promulgation Order No. 07-003-06 (Feb. 24, 2014). Please see “SOURCE” to each rule for any amendment that may have occurred to said rule. COL2242014 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPLICABILITY OF RULES Page Rule 1 -- Effective Date of Rules, Scope and Practice. 1 Rule 2 -- Suspension of Rules. 1 APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Rule 3 -- Appeals, Notice. 1 (a) Filing the Notice of Appeal. (b) Joint or Consolidated Appeals. (c) Content of the Notice of Appeal. (d) Criminal Appeals. (e) Denomination of Parties. (1) Appeals. (2) Cross-Appeals. (3) Privacy and Confidentiality. (f) Service of the Notice of Appeal. Rule 4 -- Appeals, Timing . 4 (a) Appeal in a Civil Case. (1) Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal. (2) Filing before Entry of Judgment. (3) Multiple Appeals. (4) Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeal. (5) Motion for Extension of Time. (6) Reopening the Time to File an Appeal. (7) Entry Defined. (b) Appeal in a Criminal Case. (1) Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal. (2) Filing before Entry of Judgment. (3) Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeal. (4) Motion for Extension of Time. (5) Jurisdiction. (6) Entry Defined. (c) Appeal by an Inmate Confined in an Institution. (d) Mistaken Filing in the Court of Appeals. Rule 4.1 -- Statement of Jurisdiction.
[Show full text]
Unfunded Mandates: a Unifying Principle of All Counties Ecounty Lines | November 2020
Protection from Unfunded Mandates: A Unifying Principle of All Counties eCounty Lines | November 2020 There are various protections in place for local governments from unfunded mandates, both in state statute, as well as the execution of laws by the Governor and his departments. However, there is no absolute protection. Collectively, commissioners—assisted by Colorado Counties Inc.—are the strongest defense against unfunded mandates. A statute enacted in 1991 prohibits unfunded mandates, with some exceptions. “No new state mandate or an increase in the level of service…shall be mandated by the general assembly or any state agency on any local government unless the state provides additional moneys to reimburse such local government for the costs …such mandate or increased level of service for an existing state mandate shall be optional on the part of the local government” (CRS 29-1-304.5). The Colorado Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) took this statute a step further by allowing local governments to end their participation in a program, if funding was inadequate. “Except for public education through grade 12 or as required of a local district by federal law, a local district may reduce or end its subsidy to any program delegated to it by the general assembly for administration” (Article X, Section 20(9)). Unfortunately, in 1995 these two provisions were defeated twice via State Supreme Court decisions. In the first case, Weld County attempted to withhold their portion of payments towards a public assistance program administered through the county. However, the court did not find this payment to be a subsidy (as referenced in TABOR) and declared that as an arm of the state, counties were essentially part of the state and therefore could not subsidize themselves, so the exemption was not allowed [Romer v.
[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]
INSURANCE COVERAGE Alert!
INSURANCE COVERAGE Alert! News Concerning Recent Insurance Coverage Issues January 29, 2008 www.cozen.com OREGON SUPREME COURT RULES TORT REFORM PRINCIPAL OFFICE: CAP AS APPLIED TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PHILADELPHIA NEW YORK MIDTOWN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL (215) 665-2000 (212) 509-9400 (800) 523-2900 (800) 437-7040 ATLANTA NEWARK By: William F. Knowles and Joshua M. Rosen (404) 572-2000 (973) 286-1200 [email protected] & [email protected] (800) 890-1393 (888) 200-9521 CHARLOTTE SANTA FE (704) 376-3400 (505) 820-3346 The Oregon Supreme Court recently held that a plaintiff could pursue liability claims (800) 762-3575 (866) 231-0144 against individual public employees of public entities. The Court further stated that the damages cap in the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA) violated the Remedy Clause CHERRY HILL SAN DIEGO (856) 910-5000 (619) 234-1700 of the Oregon Constitution. Jordaan Michael Clarke v. Oregon Health Sciences (800) 989-0499 (800) 782-3366 University, No. SC S053868, (Ore. Sup., December 28, 2007). CHICAGO SAN FRANCISCO (312) 382-3100 (415) 617-6100 In February 1998, Jordaan Michael Clarke (Clarke) was born at Oregon Health & (877) 992-6036 (800) 818-0165 Science University (OHSU) with a congenital heart defect. In May 1998, Clarke returned to OHSU for surgical repair of his heart defect. After a successful surgery, DALLAS SEATTLE (214) 462-3000 (206) 340-1000 Clarke was placed in a surgical intensive care unit, where he suffered permanent brain (800) 448-1207 (800) 423-1950 damage from oxygen deprivation. DENVER TORONTO (720) 479-3900 (416) 361-3200 In 2001, Clarke sued OHSU and the medical staff personnel who treated Clarke for (877) 467-0305 (888) 727-9948 more than $17 million to pay for his lifetime care, loss and future wages and non-economic damages.
[Show full text]
Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT Media Release COPIES: Contact: Copies of the slip opinions may be obtained from the Appellate Records Section, (503) 986-5555 Stephen P. Armitage The full text of these opinions can be found at www.courts.oregon.gov/publications Staff Attorney (503) 986-7023 Case decided August 6, 2020. Jennifer James, et al. v. State of Oregon, et al., (SC S066933) On petition for review under Oregon Laws 2019, chapter 355, section 65. Petitioners' requests for relief challenging Oregon Laws 2019, chapter 355, sections 1-19 and 39-40, are denied. Today, the Oregon Supreme Court denied claims brought by petitioners challenging two amendments to the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) enacted by the legislature in SB 1049 (Oregon Laws 2019, chapter 355). The first challenged amendment redirects a member's PERS contributions from the member's individual account program -- the defined-contribution component of the member's retirement plan - - to a newly created employee pension stability account, used to help fund the defined- benefit component of the member's retirement plan. The second challenged amendment imposes a cap on the salary used to calculate a member's benefits. Petitioners primarily argued that the redirection and salary-cap provisions in SB 1049 unconstitutionally impaired their employment contracts in violation of the state Contract Clause, Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution. In the alternative, petitioners argued that the amendments violated the federal Contract Clause, Article I, section 10, clause 1, of the United States Constitution, breached their contracts, and constituted an unconstitutional taking of their property without just compensation in violation of Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
[Show full text]
The Judiciary of Guam Fiscal Year 2017 a Citizen - Centric Report Website
The Judiciary of Guam Fiscal Year 2017 A Citizen - Centric Report Website: www.guamcourts.org TABLE OF CONTENTS About Us 1 Our Performance 2 Vision Our Finances 3 e Judiciary will Our Outlook 4 provide the highest quality of judicial services, thus enhanc- ing public trust and condence in Guam’s Mission independent and e Judiciary administers justice by co-equal branch of interpreting and upholding the government and laws, resolving disputes in a timely becoming the model manner and providing accessible, of governmental ecient and eective court excellence. services. The Supreme Court of Guam (L-R) Justice F. Phillip Carbullido, Chief Justice Katherine A. Maraman and Justice Robert J. Torres. About Us e Judiciary of Guam is the third branch of the Government of Guam that is charged with interpreting the laws of the U.S. Territory of Guam. e Judiciary is comprised of the Superior Court of Guam and the Supreme Court of Guam of which both the trial and appellate courts provide for the selement of disputes between parties and protects the rights of individuals as mandated in the Organic Act of Guam and the Constitution of the United States of America. e Judicial Council of Guam is the governing body of the Judiciary of Guam. Pursuant to law, it is composed of all full-time Justices of the Supreme Court, the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, and an appointed Superior Court Judge. e current compo- sition of the Judicial Council was created in 2003, and in 2004, aer an amendment to the Organic Act of Guam eectuated by the United States Congress in Public Law 108-378, the The Superior Court of Guam (L-R) Family Court Referee Linda L.
[Show full text]
June 29, 2021 Chief Justice Michael K. Davis 307-777-7421 JUDI
NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For more information contact: June 29, 2021 Chief Justice Michael K. Davis 307-777-7421 JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION ANNOUNCES VACANCY IN CIRCUIT COURT, NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (FREMONT COUNTY) Wyoming Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael K. Davis announced today that Circuit Court Judge Robert B. Denhardt, Ninth Judicial District (Fremont County–Lander), will be retiring effective October 4, 2021. The Judicial Nominating Commission will accept expressions of interest from qualified persons to fill the vacancy through Monday, July 26, 2021. The expression of interest form can be obtained from the Supreme Court’s website, http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Administration/Careers. The completed form must be received in the office of Justice Fox no later than 5:00 p.m., on Monday, July 26, 2021. Please do not submit letters of recommendation, as the Commission will not consider them, but will instead only review documents specifically required by the Expression of Interest. Governor Mark Gordon will appoint the Ninth Judicial District Circuit Court Judge (Fremont County–Lander) from a list of three names submitted to him by the Judicial Nominating Commission. Serving on the Judicial Nominating Commission are the Chief Justice (Justice Fox as of July 1, 2021), three lawyers elected by the Wyoming State Bar: Gay Woodhouse of Cheyenne, Anna Reeves Olson of Casper, and Katherine Strike of Lander; and three non-lawyers appointed by the Governor: Gudrid Espenscheid of Big Piney, Paul Scherbel of Afton, and Dan Kirkbride of Chugwater. TO SERVE AS A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, ONE MUST BE A QUALIFIED ELECTOR OF THE STATE, AND AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW IN WYOMING.
[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]
In the District Court of Appeal First District of Florida
Filing # 113063503 E-Filed 09/09/2020 11:34:29 AM IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT OF FLORIDA DELANEY REYNOLDS, et al. Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Case No. 1D20-2036 L.T. Case No. 18-CA-00819 THE STATE OF FLORIDA; RON DESANTIS, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida, et al. Defendants/Appellees. __________________________________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA __________________________________________________________________ INITIAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS __________________________________________________________________ GUY M. BURNS, FBN 0160901 MITCHELL A. CHESTER, FBN 288136 Johnson Pope Boker Ruppel & Law Office of Mitchell A. Chester, P.A. Burns, LLP 150 S. Pine Island Road, Ste. 300 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 3100 Plantation, Florida 33324 RECEIVED, 09/09/2020 11:35:30 AM, Clerk, First District Court of Appeal Tampa, Florida 33602 Ph: (954) 759-9960 Ph: (813) 225-2500 Fx: (954) 759-9930 Fx: (813) 223-7118 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Appellants ERIN L. DEADY, FBN 0367310 F. WALLACE POPE, JR., FBN 124449 Erin L. Deady, P.A. Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppel & 54 ½ SE 6th Avenue Burns, LLP Delray Beach, FL 33483 911 Chestnut Street Ph: (954) 593-5102 Clearwater, Florida 33756 [email protected] Ph: (727) 461-1818 Fx: (727) 441-8167 [email protected] DEB SWIM, FBN 336025 JANE WEST, FBN 159417 Deb Swim, PLLC Jane West Law, P.L. 1323 Diamond Street 24 Cathedral Place, Ste. 504 Tallahassee, FL 32301 St. Augustine, FL 32084 Ph: (850) 656-0448 Ph: (904) 471-0505 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] MATTHEW D.
[Show full text]
Remote Access to Court Records
WYOMING LEGISLATIVE SERVICE OFFICE Remote Access to Court Records Date: June 17, 2019 Author: Tamara Rivale, Senior Staff Attorney Re: Remote Access to Court Records INTRODUCTION around the nation. The Wyoming Judicial This introductory brief provides a high-level Branch has undertaken multiple and ongoing efforts to implement and upgrade technology summary from the Legislative Service Office 1 (LSO) describing the status of remote access in the courts including eFiling, automated to public court records in Wyoming. This jury notification, and courtroom technology. topic was added to the interim work of the These efforts, although related, are distinct Joint Appropriations Committee (JAC) by from the JAC interim topic, which focuses on Management Council at its March 22, 2019 remote access to court records. The following meeting. Specifically, the approved topic definitions from the Wyoming Supreme states: Court's Rules Governing Access to Court Records help illustrate the scope of this The Committee will review the status of interim topic: storage and access to public court records and documents, especially within the • "Court records" means case records and district and circuit courts, to improve administrative records, in whatever access, including access for documents format, except personnel records, judicial necessary for background checks. The or judicial staff work product, internal Committee will review and consider the electronic or physical mail, memoranda or revenues used to fund implementation of drafts, appellate case assignments, and needed and desired technology upgrades, records made confidential by statute, including subscription-based funding administrative rule, court rule, or court models utilized in other states, i.e., Utah, order.
[Show full text]
Best Respondent's Brief NO
Best Respondent's Brief NO. 03-0052 In The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourteenth Circuit Spring Term 2003 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, V. ELIZABETH MONROE, APPELLANT. On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Glidden BRIEF FOR APPELLEE Team #6 Charlotte LeClercq Kory A. Atkinson Northern Illinois University College of Law Swen Parson Hall DeKalb, IL 60115 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 376 NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 23 QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether federal agents violated the Fourth Amendment right of the appellant to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures when agents, pursuant to a valid premises search warrant, searched a purse defendant had voluntarily placed on a chair while she was a guest on the premises? 2. Whether appellant is subject to criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense when she traded twenty kilograms of cocaine for five AK-47 assault rifles in furtherance of a drug distribution conspiracy? 2003] BEST RESPONDENT'S BRIEF OPINIONS BELOW The order and judgment of the District Court for the District of Glidden are unreported and are contained in the Transcript of the Record (R. at 20-22; R. at 33) and in the Appendix (C-I; E-1).* STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION A formal statement of jurisdiction has been omitted in accordance with the rule of the Northern Illinois University College of Law Second Year Moot Court Competition. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The United States District Court for the District of Glidden convicted the defendant, Elizabeth Monroe, of violating 18 U.S.C.
[Show full text]
The Minnesota Judicial Selection Process: Rejecting Judicial Elec
William Mitchell Law Review Volume 19 | Issue 3 Article 9 1993 The innesotM a Judicial Selection Process: Rejecting Judicial Elections in Favor of a Merit Plan Laura Benson Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Benson, Laura (1993) "The inneM sota Judicial Selection Process: Rejecting Judicial Elections in Favor of a Merit Plan," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 19: Iss. 3, Article 9. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol19/iss3/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Benson: The Minnesota Judicial Selection Process: Rejecting Judicial Elec THE MINNESOTA JUDICIAL SELECTION PROCESS: REJECTING JUDICIAL ELECTIONS IN FAVOR OF A MERIT PLAN LAURA BENSON I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 765 II. BACKGROUND .......................................... .766 A. Federal Selection ofJudges ............................. 766 B. State Selection ofJudges ............................... 767 C. Minnesota's Judicial Electoral Process ................... 768 1. Gustafson v. Holm ............................. 770 2. Peterson v. Stafford ............................. 771 III. A NALYSIS .............................................. 774 A. Current
[Show full text]