DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Supreme Court of Florida

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Supreme Court of Florida IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THOMAS C. SUTTON, et al., Case No. SC06-1000 Petitioners, District Court Case Nos. 1D05- 5922; 1D05-5923; 1D05-5924; v. 1D05-5925; 1D05-5927; 1D05- 5930; 1D05-5931; 1D05-5938; STATE OF FLORIDA, 1D05-5945; 1D05-5947; 1D05- 5948 Respondent. INITIAL BRIEF OF PETITIONERS MICHAEL UFFERMAN Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A. 2022-1 Raymond Diehl Road Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (850) 386-2345/fax (850) 224-2340 FL Bar No. 114227 Counsel for Petitioners A. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................ii B. TABLE OF CITATIONS .........................................................................iii 1. Cases iii 2. Statutes .........................................................................................vii 3. Other Authority.............................................................................vii C. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .......1 D. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT..................................................................3 E. ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS OF AUTHORITY. ................................4 A circuit court’s order on a petition for writ of prohibition is reviewable by direct appeal ......................................................................4 1. Standard of Review. ...............................................................4 2. Argument ..............................................................................4 F. CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 23 G. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................. 24 H. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE........................................................ 25 ii B. TABLE OF CITATIONS Page 1. Cases Adams v. State ex rel. Eagan, 478 So. 2d 1190 (Fla 5th DCA 1985) .....................7 Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 685 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1996) ....................................................................................... 21-22 Baez v. State, 699 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ............................................. 21 Benton v. Circuit Court, 382 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) ............................ 14 Beshaw v. State, 586 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) .................................... 4, 7 Birkin v. Sheer, 543 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) ..........................................9 Bondurant v. Geeker, 499 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) ................................ 15 Bradley v. McDermott, 466 So. 2d 1108 (Fla 5th DCA 1985) ..............................8 Broward County v. G.V.B. Int’l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2001) ....................... 19 Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978) .........................................................6 Burkhart v. Circuit Court, 1 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1941) ........................................... 14 Caverly v. State, 436 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) ..........................................8 Chapman v. State ex rel. Carlton, 11 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 1943) ................................9 City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982) ......................... 19 City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Pickin’ Chicken, 129 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) ..................................................................................8 Cobb v. State ex rel. Pitchford, 3 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1941) ......................................9 iii Conner v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., 541 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) ........8 Corbin v. State ex rel. Slaughter, 324 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) ............... 14 Crill v. State Road Dept., 117 So. 795 (Fla. 1928) ............................................ 13 D’Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 863 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2003) ..........................................4 English v. McCray, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977) ................................................. 15 Gibson v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 895 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ......... 19 Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 355 (1963) ...................................................... 17 Griffith v. Florida Parole and Prob. Comm’n, 485 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1986) ......... 18 Guzzetta v. Hamrick, 663 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1995) (table).......................................7 Guzzetta v. Hamrick, 656 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ............................ 2, 7 Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995) ............................ 19 Harrell v. State, 700 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ..........................................7 Harris v. Culbreath, 818 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) .................................6-7 Harrison v. Murphy, 181 So. 386 (Fla. 1938) ......................................................9 Hensley v. Singletary, 690 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) .................................8 Hoffman v. Land, 55 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1952) ........................................................9 Housing Auth. of the City of Tampa v. Burton, 873 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) .......................................................... 2, 5-6, 11, 16, 21 Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1998) ........................................ 16 Lane v. Florida Prob. Comm’n, 894 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ............... 10 iv Lee County v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) ..................................................................................8 Loftis v. State, 682 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) .........................................6-7 Mabrey v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 858 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) .......... 19 Maliska v. Broome, 609 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) .................................. 15 Mank v. Hendrickson, 195 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967) .................................8 Masiello v. Moore, 739 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) ............................. 8, 20 Mazer v. Orange County, 811 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ............................8 McConiha v. Guthrie, 21 W. Va. 134 (1882) ................................................13, 15 Moore v. Florida Parole and Prob. Comm’n, 289 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1974) ...... 17-19 Pacha v. Salfi, 381 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) .......................................... 14 Pinfield v. State, 710 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) ................................ 6-7, 16 Ponton v. Moore, 744 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) ................................ 8, 20 Richardson v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 924 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) ..... 19 Rivera v. Moore, 825 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) ....................................... 20 Rivera v. State, SC06-2236 ................................................................................4 Rivera v. State, 939 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ............................................4 Roberson v. Florida Parole and Prob. Comm’n, 444 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1983) ............................................................................................. 17 Sanford v. Black, 782 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ........................................8 v Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998) ...................3, 16-22 Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) ......18, 21 Sparkman v. McClure, 498 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1986) ....................................... 14-15 State ex rel. Assoc. Util. Corp. v. Chillingworth, 181 So. 346 (Fla. 1938) ...... 13-14 State ex rel. B.F. Goodrich, Co. v. Trammell, 192 So. 175 (Fla. 1939) ............... 14 State ex rel. City of Miami v. Knight, 189 So. 425 (Fla. 1939) ..............................9 State ex rel. Rash v. Williams, 302 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) .................... 14 State ex rel. Rheinauer v. Malone, 23 So. 575 (Fla. 1898) .................................. 13 State ex rel. Smith v. Gomez, 179 So. 651 (Fla. 1938) ........................................ 14 State v. Brown, 527 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).............................4, 6-7, 9, 20 State v. Frazee, 617 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) ................................2, 10-16 State v. Furen, 118 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1960) ............................................................ 13 State v. Phillips, 520 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ..........................................9 State v. Shaw, 643 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) ..................................... 6, 10 State v. Wassel, 502 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ...........................................9 Tedder v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 842 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) .......... 19 Treiman v. State, 343 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1977)........................................................8 Underwood v. Johnson, 651 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) ............................. 10 Weeks v. Golden, 764 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) .................................. 8, 20 Wright v. Worth, 91 So. 87 (Fla. 1922) ............................................................. 15 vi 2. Statutes Ch. 120, Fla. Stat. ........................................................................................... 17 § 120.52(10), Fla. Stat. .................................................................................... 17 § 120.68, Fla. Stat. .......................................................................................... 17 3. Other Authority Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. ............................................................................ 22 Art. V, § 5(b), Fla. Const. ................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    No. 15-___ IN THE SEQUENOM, INC., Petitioner, v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., NATERA, INC., AND DNA DIAGNOSTICS CENTER, INC. Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Michael J. Malecek Thomas C. Goldstein Robert Barnes Counsel of Record KAYE SCHOLER LLP Eric F. Citron Two Palo Alto Square G OLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C. Suite 400 7475 Wisconsin Ave. 3000 El Camino Real Suite 850 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Bethesda, MD 20814 (650) 319-4500 (202) 362-0636 [email protected] QUESTION PRESENTED In 1996, two doctors discovered cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) circulating in maternal plasma. They used that discovery to invent a test for detecting fetal genetic conditions in early pregnancy that avoided dangerous, invasive techniques. Their patent teaches technicians to take a maternal blood sample, keep the non-cellular portion (which was “previously discarded as medical waste”), amplify the genetic material with- in (which they alone knew about), and identify pater- nally inherited sequences as a means of distinguish- ing fetal and maternal DNA. Notably, this method does not preempt other demonstrated uses of cffDNA. The Federal Circuit “agree[d]” that this invention “combined and utilized man-made tools of biotechnol- ogy in a new way that revolutionized prenatal care.” Pet.App. 18a. But it still held that Mayo Collabora- tive Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), makes all such inventions patent-ineligible as a matter of law if their new combination involves only a “natural phenomenon” and techniques that were “routine” or “conventional” on their own.
    [Show full text]
  • Bush V. Superior Court (Rains), 10 Cal.App.4Th 1374 (1992)
    Supreme Court, U.S. FILED ( p NOV 272018 1.1 No. k I \ zy OFFICE OF THE CLERK iiiii ORGNAL SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RASH B. GHOSH and INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BENGAL BASIN, Petitioners, V. CITY OF BERKELEY, ZACH COWAN, LAURA MCKINNEY, JOAN MACQUARRIE, PATRICK EMMONS, GREG HEIDENRICH, CARLOS ROMO, GREG DANIEL, MANAGEWEST, BENJAMIN MCGREW, KORMAN & NG, INC., MICHAEL KORMAN, MIRIAM NG, ROMAN FAN, ROBERT RICHERSON, KRISTEN DIEDRE RICHERSON, ANDREA RICHERSON, DEBRA A. RICHERSON, AND PRISM TRUST, Re s p0 ii den t S. On Petition For a Writ of Certiorari To The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Rash B. Ghosh Pro Se P. 0. Box 11553 Berkeley, CA 94712 (510) 575-5112 THE QUESTION PRESENTED Ghosh owned two adjacent buildings in Berkeley, and the co- plaintiff, International Institute of Bengal Basin (IIBB) occupied one of them. In a pending lawsuit, petitioners filed a third amended complaint, alleging that newly discovered evidence showed that the newly-named defendants conspired with the other defendants to deprive them of their property and arrange for it to be sold at a below-market price to some of the new. defendants. The trial court sustained demurrers by the defendants, and Ghosh and IIBB sought to appeal. Because Petitioner Ghosh had been found to be a vexatious litigant, he had to make application to the presiding justice of the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, and show that the appeal had merit. He made application, and pointed out numerous (and sometimes obvious) errors the trial court had made in sustaining the demurrer.
    [Show full text]
  • ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PAPER CODE- 801 TOPIC- WRITS Constitutional Philosophy of Writs
    CLASS- B.A.LL.B VIIIth SEMESTER SUBJECT- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PAPER CODE- 801 TOPIC- WRITS Constitutional philosophy of Writs: A person whose right is infringed by an arbitrary administrative action may approach the Court for appropriate remedy. The Constitution of India, under Articles 32 and 226 confers writ jurisdiction on Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively for enforcement/protection of fundamental rights of an Individual. Writ is an instrument or order of the Court by which the Court (Supreme Court or High Courts) directs an Individual or official or an authority to do an act or abstain from doing an act. Understanding of Article 32 Article 32 is the right to constitutional remedies enshrined under Part III of the constitution. Right to constitutional remedies was considered as a heart and soul of the constitution by Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar. Article 32 makes the Supreme court as a protector and guarantor of the Fundamental rights. Article 32(1) states that if any fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution is violated by the government then the person has right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of his fundamental rights. Article 32(2) gives power to the Supreme court to issue writs, orders or direction. It states that the Supreme court can issue 5 types of writs habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for the enforcement of any fundamental rights given under Part III of the constitution. The Power to issue writs is the original jurisdiction of the court. Article 32(3) states that parliament by law can empower any of courts within the local jurisdiction of India to issue writs, order or directions guaranteed under Article 32(2).
    [Show full text]
  • Exhaustion of State Remedies Before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: a Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 43 | Issue 1 Article 7 1963 Exhaustion of State Remedies before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: A Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section Merritt aJ mes University of Nebraska College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Merritt aJ mes, Exhaustion of State Remedies before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: A Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section, 43 Neb. L. Rev. 120 (1964) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol43/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. NEBRASKA LAW REVIEW VOL. 43, NO. 1 EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES BEFORE BRINGING FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS: A REAPPRAISAL OF U.S. CODE SECTION 2254 I. INTRODUCTION There are many instances in which a state's prisoner, after being denied his liberty for years, has subsequently, upon issuance of federal writ of habeas corpus, either been proven innocent or adjudged entitled to a new trial upon grounds that he was denied some constitutional right during the process of his state court trial.' In some of these cases it has been clear from the very beginning that if the allegations of the writ were proven, the de- tention was unconstitutional. Yet the prisoner is still forced to endure years of confinement while exhausting state remedies before 2 federal habeas corpus is available to him.
    [Show full text]
  • 20210716182833230 2021.0716 OABA Petition for Certiorari.Pdf
    NO. _______________ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _______________ OUTDOOR AMUSEMENT BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, INC.; MARYLAND STATE SHOWMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC.; THE SMALL AND SEASONAL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER; LASTING IMPRESSIONS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS, INC.; THREE SEASONS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC.; NEW CASTLE LAWN & LANDSCAPE, INC., Petitioners v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES; DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING ADMINISTRATION; WAGE & HOUR DIVISION, Respondents _______________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court Of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit _______________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI _______________ R. Wayne Pierce, Esq. Leon R. Sequeira, Esq. The Pierce Law Firm, LLC Counsel of Record 133 Defense Hwy, Suite 201 616 South Adams Street Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Arlington, Virginia 22204 410-573-9955 (202) 255-9023 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners QUESTION PRESENTED With exceptions not relevant hereto, Congress has expressly bestowed all "administration and enforcement" functions under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq., including rulemaking and adjudication for the admission of temporary, non-agricultural workers under the H-2B visa program, exclusively on the Secretary of Homeland Security. Id. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), 1103(a)(1), (3), and 1184(a)(1), (c)(1). The Secretary adjudicates employer H-2B petitions "after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government." Id. § 1184(c)(1). The question presented is: Whether Congress, consistent with the nondelegation doctrine and clear-statement rule, impliedly authorized the Secretary of Labor individually to promulgate legislative rules for the admission of H-2B workers and adjudicate H-2B labor certifications.
    [Show full text]
  • 15. Judicial Review
    15. Judicial Review Contents Summary 413 A common law principle 414 Judicial review in Australia 416 Protections from statutory encroachment 417 Australian Constitution 417 Principle of legality 420 International law 422 Bills of rights 422 Justifications for limits on judicial review 422 Laws that restrict access to the courts 423 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 423 General corporate regulation 426 Taxation 427 Other issues 427 Conclusion 428 Summary 15.1 Access to the courts to challenge administrative action is an important common law right. Judicial review of administrative action is about setting the boundaries of government power.1 It is about ensuring government officials obey the law and act within their prescribed powers.2 15.2 This chapter discusses access to the courts to challenge administrative action or decision making.3 It is about judicial review, rather than merits review by administrators or tribunals. It does not focus on judicial review of primary legislation 1 ‘The position and constitution of the judicature could not be considered accidental to the institution of federalism: for upon the judicature rested the ultimate responsibility for the maintenance and enforcement of the boundaries within which government power might be exercised and upon that the whole system was constructed’: R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, 276 (Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Fullagar and Kitto JJ). 2 ‘The reservation to this Court by the Constitution of the jurisdiction in all matters in which the named constitutional writs or an injunction are sought against an officer of the Commonwealth is a means of assuring to all people affected that officers of the Commonwealth obey the law and neither exceed nor neglect any jurisdiction which the law confers on them’: Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476, [104] (Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ).
    [Show full text]
  • Some Practical Suggestions on Defense Motions and Other Procedures Before Trial Jackson W
    [Vol. 40 Some Practical Suggestions on Defense Motions and Other Procedures Before Trial Jackson W. Chance* A ,mxARY objective of the defense trial lawyer should be to terminate the litigation successfully at the earliest possible stage of the litigation in a manner which will afford reasonable assurance of receiving favorable treatment in the event of an appeal. The accomplishment of this objective before trial on the merits is much to be desired. The law affords a variety of tools for the accomplishment of that end in appropriate cases. The prac- tical usefulness of some of these implements is the main burden of this paper. Some suggestions as to when one of these tools may work if another is out of order may be worthwhile. The practitioner starts with the premise that on the hearing of a de- murrer the court is bound by the facts alleged in the pleading and is not entitled to consider facts presented to it through the medium of an af- fidavit.' But should he stop with that rule? Or are there other means avail- able, in proper cases, to reach false allegations or facts not alleged in the complaint, either on demurrer or on motion and before trial on the merits? The answer to that question presents interesting possibilities to the prac- ticing attorney. 1. InitialProblem of Whether or Not to Make a PreliminaryMove The pretrial moves discussed in this paper are aimed primarily at vul- nerable complaints. To take advantage of such vulnerability by adjudica- tion before trial on the merits is the goal.
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioners, V
    No. _______ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Petitioners, v. NORRIS COCHRAN, in his official capacity as the Acting Sec- retary of Health and Human Services, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR. Counsel of Record JEREMY S. KREISBERG MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 500E Washington, DC 20001 (202) 220-1100 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners i QUESTION PRESENTED Under federal law, the reimbursement rate paid by Medicare for specified covered outpatient drugs is set based on one of two alternative payment methodolo- gies. If the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has collected adequate “hospital acquisition cost survey data,” it sets the reimbursement rate equal to the “average acquisition cost for the drug,” and “may vary” that rate “by hospital group.” 42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(14)(A)(iii)(I). If HHS has not collected ade- quate “hospital acquisition cost data,” it must set a re- imbursement rate equal to the “average price for the drug,” which is “calculated and adjusted by [HHS] as necessary for purposes of” the statute. 42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(14)(A)(iii)(II). The question presented is whether Chevron defer- ence permits HHS to set reimbursement rates based on acquisition cost and vary such rates by hospital group if it has not collected adequate hospital acquisi- tion cost survey data. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners are the American Hospital Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, Amer- ica’s Essential Hospitals, Northern Light Health, Henry Ford Health System, and Fletcher Hospital, Inc., d/b/a AdventHealth Hendersonville.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure
    NORTH CAROLINA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Codified by the Office of Administrative Counsel, Supreme Court of North Carolina [email protected] Grant E. Buckner www.NCcourts.gov/courts/supreme-court Administrative Counsel Table of Contents _________________________ Article I Applicability of Rules Rule 1. Title; Scope of Rules; Trial Tribunal Defined ............................................... 12 (a) Title. (b) Scope of Rules. (c) Rules Do Not Affect Jurisdiction. (d) Definition of Trial Tribunal. Rule 2. Suspension of Rules ....................................................................................... 12 Article II Appeals from Judgments and Orders of Superior Courts and District Courts Rule 3. Appeal in Civil Cases—How and When Taken ............................................. 13 (a) Filing the Notice of Appeal. (b) Special Provisions. (c) Time for Taking Appeal. (d) Content of Notice of Appeal. (e) Service of Notice of Appeal. Rule 3.1. Review in Cases Governed by Subchapter I of the Juvenile Code ............ 14 (a) Scope. (b) Filing the Notice of Appeal. (c) Expediting the Delivery of the Transcript. (d) Expediting the Filing of the Record on Appeal. (e) No-Merit Briefs. (f) Word-Count Limitations Applicable to Briefs. (g) Motions for Extensions of Time. (h) Duty of Trial Counsel. (i) Electronic Filing Required. Rule 4. Appeal in Criminal Cases—How and When Taken ...................................... 16 (a) Manner and Time. (b) Content of Notice of Appeal. 2 (c) Service of Notice of Appeal. (d) To Which Appellate Court Addressed. Rule 5. Joinder of Parties on Appeal .......................................................................... 16 (a) Appellants. (b) Appellees. (c) Procedure after Joinder. Rule 6. Security for Costs on Appeal ......................................................................... 17 (a) In Regular Course. (b) In Forma Pauperis Appeals. (c) Filed with Record on Appeal.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Decision-Making and Justiciability
    Deciding to Not Decide: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Politics of Secondary Access on the U.S. Supreme Court A dissertation submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Andrew Povtak May 2011 Dissertation written by Andrew Povtak B.A., Case Western Reserve University, 2000 J.D., Cleveland State University, 2004 Approved by _____________________________, Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Christopher Banks _____________________________, Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Ryan Claassen _____________________________, Mark Colvin _____________________________, Elizabeth Smith-Pryor _____________________________, Graduate Faculty Representative Stephen Webster Accepted by ______________________________, Chair, Department of Political Science Steven Hook ______________________________, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences John R.D. Stalvey ii Table of Contents List of Tables…………………………………………………………………...iv Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………v Chapter 1 – Introduction………………………………………………………1 I. An Overview of the U.S. Supreme Court………………………...3 II. Jurisdictional and Procedural Doctrines…………………………8 III. The Elements of Justiciability: Standing, Timing, and Political Question…………………………………………11 IV. Justiciability Issues: Legal and Political Science Research…..18 V. Data and Methods………………………………………………....28 VI. Conclusion…………………………………………………………41 Chapter 2 – Assessing the Attitudinal and Legal Models…………………42 I. Literature Review: Models of Individual Justice Voting
    [Show full text]
  • Constraining Certiorari Using Administrative Law Principles Kathryn A
    University of Washington School of Law UW Law Digital Commons Articles Faculty Publications 2012 Constraining Certiorari Using Administrative Law Principles Kathryn A. Watts University of Washington School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Kathryn A. Watts, Constraining Certiorari Using Administrative Law Principles, 160 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (2012), https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles/41 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WATTS_FINAL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 11/17/2011 11:46 AM University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 ________________ Formerly American Law Register ________________________ VOL. 160 DECEMBER 2011 NO. 1 ARTICLE CONSTRAINING CERTIORARI USING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PRINCIPLES † KATHRYN A. WATTS The U.S. Supreme Court—thanks to various statutes passed by Congress beginning in 1891 and culminating in 1988—currently enjoys nearly unfet- tered discretion to set its docket using the writ of certiorari. Over the past few decades, concerns have mounted that the Court has been taking the wrong mix of cases, hearing too few cases, and relying too heavily on law clerks in the cer- tiorari process. Scholars, in turn, have proposed fairly sweeping reforms, such as the creation of a certiorari division to handle certiorari petitions. This Ar- † Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development and Associate Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Functus Officio and the Piwrogative Writ of Prohibition
    FUNCTUS OFFICIO AND THE PIWROGATIVE WRIT OF PROHIBITION By Ross A. SUNDBERG* An imaginary system cunningly planned for the evil purpose of thwarting justice and maximizing fruitless litigation would copy the major features of the extraordinary remedies. For the purpose of creating treacherous procedural snares and preventing or delaying the decision of cases on their merits, such a scheme would insist upon a plurality of remedies . .l There would appear to have been a deal of unnecessary litigation occasioned by the very fine line separating the stages at which the writs of certiorari and prohibition are properly sought. The objection in point of plurality of remedies is supported by the law of functus oficio-that despite the many points of law common to certiorari and prohibition each is available at a different stage in proceedings. The scene for the discussion that follows can be set very simply: Once proceedings have begun in the tribunal, but not until they have begun, prohibition may be obtained at any time until they are finished. if the proceedings have ended, the lower tribunal is said to be functus officio and prohibition ceases to be available.2 Is this a rehement that should be retained? Is it likely to result in many cases failing to reach the merits? Have the courts done anything to minimize the procedural difficulties that could arise from the distinction? These are some of the questions to which attention should be directed. The writs have the following points in common: historically they were used to control inferior courts; they are available in respect of a body with power to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and having an obligation to act judicially; neither goes to an administrative tribunal, or so it is said;3 they are available only when the power to determine is de- rived from statute or subordinate legislation; the rules as to standing are the same; neither writ lies against the Crown.
    [Show full text]