12. Concurrent Jurisdiction, Memoranda of Understanding, & Extra-Jurisdictional Incidents I. Policy Ii. Checklist
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
FERC Vs. Bankruptcy Courts—The Battle Over Jurisdiction Continues
FERC vs. Bankruptcy Courts—The Battle over Jurisdiction Continues By Hugh M. McDonald and Neil H. Butterklee* In energy industry bankruptcies, the issue of whether a U.S. bankruptcy court has sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine a debtor’s motion to reject an executory contract has mostly involved a jurisdictional struggle involving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The dearth of judicial (and legislative) guidance on this issue has led to shifting decisions and inconsistent outcomes leaving counterparties to contracts in still uncertain positions when a contract counterparty commences a bankruptcy case. The authors of this article discuss the jurisdiction conundrum. The COVID-19 pandemic has put pressure on all aspects of the United States economy, including the energy sector. Counterparties to energy-related contracts, such as power purchase agreements (“PPAs”) and transportation services agreements (“TSAs”), may need to commence bankruptcy cases to restructure their balance sheets and, as part of such restructuring, may seek to shed unprofitable or out-of-market contracts. However, this situation has created a new stage for the decades-old jurisdictional battle between bankruptcy courts and energy regulators. The U.S. Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to assume or reject executory contracts with the approval of the bankruptcy judge presiding over the case.1 The standard employed by courts when assessing the debtor’s request to assume or reject is the business judgment standard. A debtor merely has to demonstrate that assumption or rejection is in the best interest of the estate and the debtor’s business. However, most energy-related contracts are subject to regulatory oversight by federal and/or state regulatory bodies, which, depending on the type of contract that is being terminated, apply different standards—most of which take into account public policy concerns. -
Concurrent Jurisdiction Over Federal Civil RICO Claims: Is It Workable? an Analysis of Tafflin
St. John's Law Review Volume 64 Number 4 Volume 64, Fall 1990, Number 4 Article 7 Concurrent Jurisdiction Over Federal Civil RICO Claims: Is It Workable? An Analysis of Tafflin. v Levitt Yolanda Eleni Stefanou Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL CIVIL RICO CLAIMS: IS IT WORKABLE? AN ANALYSIS OF TAFFLIN v. LEVITT YOLANDA ELENI STEFANOU* INTRODUCTION With its January 22, 1990 decision of Tafflin v. Levitt,1 the Supreme Court of the United States put an end to the many years of debate between both federal and state courts as to whether state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over civil claims arising under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").2 In a unanimous opinion by Justice O'Connor, the Court concluded that such jurisdiction on the part of the states was indeed permitted.3 In reaching its decision, the majority ex- amined both the statutory language of RICO4 as well as its legisla- tive history, and determined that Congress had failed to address the jurisdictional issue.5 Moreover, the Court found that there would be no "clear incompatibility" between the exercise of state court jurisdiction over civil RICO actions and federal interests., This Article explores the implications of Tafflin, focusing on its probable effects and the jurisdictional problems associated with civil RICO claims. -
Some Fun Facts About the National Wildlife Refuge System
A quarterly newsletter for Volunteers and Friends of the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and Patuxent Research Refuge FRIENDS OF PATUXENT Vol. 30 • No. 2 www.friendsofpatuxent.org April-May-June 2019 Some Fun Facts About the Friends Co-sponsor Open House for National Wildlife Refuge System Research Community By Brad Knudsen, Refuge Manager at Bee Lab ot off the press from the U S Fish and Wildlife Service’s By Rich Dolesh, Chair, Headquarters in Falls Church, Friends of Patuxent H th Virginia, and just in time for the 116 birthday of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) on March 14, 2019, every refuge has received copies of a beautiful new publication entitled “Ex- perience the National Wildlife Refuge System.” It is in an easy to read format, brimming with facts and gorgeous pho- tos of what the NWRS is all about. Let Trumpeter Swan me share some of what I find to be the most interesting information. the entire NWRS with a specific pur- pose of supporting wildlife research; atuxent’s whooping cranes may First, of course, it emphasizes – “The thus, it is the birthplace and current be gone, but with the return of mission of the NWRS is to administer home of the USGS’ Patuxent Wildlife Pthe Bee Conservation Lab to a national network of lands and waters Research Center. the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research for the conservation, management, Center, an entirely new opportunity for and where appropriate, restoration of The publication goes on to enumer- collaborative field research on bees the fish, wildlife and plant resources ate that the NWRS consists of 95 and pollinator/plant relationships is and their habitats within the United million land acres, 740 million sub- opening up at Patuxent. -
The Opinion in US V. Gabrion
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 08a0111p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, X Plaintiff-Appellee, - - - Nos. 02-1386/1461/1570 v. - > , MARVIN CHARLES GABRION, II, - Defendant-Appellant. - N Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. No. 99-00076—Robert Holmes Bell, Chief District Judge. Argued: February 28, 2007 Decided and Filed: March 14, 2008 Before: MERRITT, BATCHELDER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Judy C. Clarke, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF SAN DIEGO, San Diego, California, Margaret S. O’Donnell, McNALLY & O’DONNELL, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellant. Joan E. Meyer, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Judy C. Clarke, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF SAN DIEGO, San Diego, California, Margaret S. O’Donnell, Kevin M. McNally, McNALLY & O’DONNELL, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellant. Joan E. Meyer, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. BATCHELDER, J., delivered the opinion of the court. MOORE, J. (pp. 16-32), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment. MERRITT, J. (pp. 33-42), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. _________________ OPINION _________________ ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. In this appeal from a federal criminal conviction, we are confronted with the precursory issue of whether a district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a criminal prosecution for murder — the federal statute for which predicates subject matter jurisdiction on the murder’s having been committed on certain federal property — when the property in question is within the national forest. -
Federalism and Civil Rights: Complementary and Competing Paradigms
Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 47 Issue 5 Issue 5 - Symposium: Federalism's Article 3 Future 10-1994 Federalism and Civil Rights: Complementary and Competing Paradigms James F. Blumstein Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons Recommended Citation James F. Blumstein, Federalism and Civil Rights: Complementary and Competing Paradigms, 47 Vanderbilt Law Review 1251 (1994) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol47/iss5/3 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Federalism and Civil Rights: Complementary and Competing Paradigms James F. Blumstein* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1252 II. THE IMPORTANCE OF FEDERALISM AND THE FEDERALISM DEAL ...................................................... 1256 III. FEDERALISM AS A CIVIL RIGHTS PARADIGM ....................... 1259 A. The Nature of Federalism...................................... 1260 B. Federalismand Civil Rights: Voting Rights as a Case Study ...................................................... 1262 1. Voting Rights as Part of the Federalism Deal ......................................... 1262 2. The Tensions Between the Federalism and Civil Rights Paradigms: Voting Rights as an Example ............................... -
Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT AND ALUMNI RELATIONS THE 24TH ANNUAL DERRICK BELL LECTURE ON RACE IN AMERICAN SOCIETY WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2019 |6:00 pm Civil Rights Act of 1866, parts of which are now codified at 42 USC section 1981, 1982, and 1983. During Reconstruction, Congress passed several statutes aimed at protecting the rights of the newly freed slaves, many of them over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. One such law was the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which declared that all people born in the United States were U.S. citizens and had certain inalienable rights, including the right to make contracts, to own property, to sue in court, and to enjoy the full protection of federal law. The act gave the U.S. district courts exclusive jurisdiction over criminal cases related to violations of the act, and concurrent jurisdiction, along with the U.S. circuit courts, of all civil and criminal cases affecting those who were unable to enforce in state court the rights guaranteed by the act. The Civil Rights Act began a gradual transformation of the federal courts into the primary forums for individuals to enforce their constitutional and statutory rights. Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) A federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, and ethnicity when making and enforcing contracts. Section 1981 specifically grants all individuals within the US jurisdiction the same rights and benefits as "enjoyed by white citizens" regarding contractual relationships (42 U.S.C. § 1981(a)). -
Wisconsin Statutes
69 WISCONSIN STATUTES 1947 TITLE 1. Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Civil Divisions of the State. CHAPTER 1. SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION OF THE STATE. 1.01 State sovereignty and jurisdiction. 1. 05 United States sites for aids to naviga- 1.02 United States sites and buildings. tion. 1.03 Concurrent jurisdiction over United 1. 055 National forest. States sites; conveyances. 1.056 State conservation areas. 1. 035 Wild life and fish refuge by United 1.06 Surveys by United States; adjustment States. of damages. 1.036 Bird reservations, acquisition by 1.07 State coat of arms. United States. 1 .08 State flag. 1. 04 United States sites exempt from taxa 1 .09 Seat of government. tion. 1.01 State sovereignty and jurisdiction. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this statf; extend to, all places within the boundaries thel'eof as declared in the constitution, subject only to such rights of jurisdiction as have been or shall he acquired by the United States over any places therein; and it shall be the duty of the governor, and of all subordinate officers of the state, to maintain and defend its sovel'eig'nty and jmis diction. Snch sovel'eignty and ,ill1'isdiction are hereby asserted and exercised over the St. Croix riveT from the eastern shore thereof to the center or thread of the same, and the exclusive jurisdiction of the state, of Minnesota to authorize any person or corporation to obstruct the navigation of said river east of the center or thread thereof, 01' to enter upon the same and build piers, booms or other fixtures, or to occupy any part of said river east of the center or thread thereof for the purpose of sorting or holding logs, is denied; such acts can only be authorized by the concurrent consent of the legislature of this state. -
Maryland & Virginia Premier Pads
MARYLAND & VIRGINIA PREMIER PADS Francis Scott Key Mall • Security Mall • White Marsh Mall • Dulles Town Center PATRICK MILLER JOE MEKULSKI [email protected] [email protected] 443-632-2042 443-632-1343 Mountaindale Smallwood Lawndale Dover Phoenix Myersville Englars Mill JacksonvilleSweet Air Boonsboro 165 194 UV27 UV Mousetown UV UV75 UV31 ¨¦§83 UV45 £¤40 Harmony Keedysville Dennings Bird Hill Oregon Ridge Park Cockeysville Glade Town Libertytown Walkersville j Appletown Gambrill State Park Weldon Unionville Glyndon 146 Antietam National Battlefield j £¤15 Morgan Run Natural Environment Area Cockeysville UV j j Reisterstown Greentop Manor Sharpsburg Clover Hill UV26 Franklinville South Mountain State Park Broadview AcresMt Pleasant Timber Grove Hampton Loch Raven Reservoir Rocky Springs Winfield Louisville Locust Grovej Middletown Fort Detrick j Delight Mays Chapel Rohrersville College Estates Liberty Reservoir Shepherdstown McKaig Dorsey Crossroads j Sunnybrook Hills UV25 Hampton 147 UV17 Braddock HeightsGrove Hill Soldiers Delight UV Frederick Owings Mills ¨¦§83 j Woodville Picketts Corner j Moler Crossroads Oak Acres Eldersburg Towson Piney Run Park Garrison Carney BurkittsvilleBroad Run 180 FRANCIS SCOTT KEY MALL Gillis Falls Resrv Site j Flohrville Ridgley Park Perry Hall UV Dorceytown Carney Grove New Market j Day WHITE MARSH MALL White Marsh Hernwood Heights Hillendale Dargan Mt Airy 32 Parkville Ballenger Creek Bartholow UV Pikesville Uvilla Briarcrest Heights Wellwood Nottingham Jefferson Monocacy National Battlefield Parrsville -
Patuxent Research Refuge Established in 1936 by Executive Order of President Franklin D
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Patuxent Research Refuge Established in 1936 by executive order of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Patuxent Research Refuge is the nation’s only National Wildlife Refuge established to support wildlife research. With land surrounding the Patuxent and Little Patuxent Rivers between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, MD, the Refuge has grown from the original 2,670 acres to its present size of 12,750 acres and encompasses land formerly managed by the Departments of Agriculture and Defense. Throughout decades of change, Patuxent’s mission of conserving and protecting the nation’s wildlife and habitat through research and wildlife management techniques has remained virtually unchanged. Introduction Patuxent Research Refuge supports a wide diversity of wildlife in forest, meadow, and wetland habitats. The land is managed to maintain biological diversity for the protection and benefit of native and migratory species. During the fall and spring migrations, many waterfowl species stop to rest and feed. Over 200 species of birds occur on the refuge. A nesting pair of bald eagles has used the North Tract of the Refuge since 1989. Increasing forest fragmentation in the area due to urban development has damaged many populations of neotropical migratory birds. The refuge is one of the largest forested areas in the mid-Atlantic region and provides critical breeding habitat and an important nesting area for these species. Patuxent Research Refuge is divided into three areas: 1) North Tract, which offers hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, trails, and many interpretive programs 2) Central Tract, where the offices and study sites of the many research biologists are located, and 3) South Tract, where the National Wildlife Visitor Center and its trails are located. -
Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan August 2017
Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan August 2017 LPPRP Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1 A. PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN .......................................................................................................................1 B. PLANNING PROCESS SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1 C. KEY ISSUES SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................1 D. GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................2 II. INTRODUCTION AND PLANNING CONTEXT ......................................................................... 3 A. PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN .......................................................................................................................3 B. PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.........................................................................................4 C. COUNTY CHARACTER AND EXISTING SYSTEM OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ..............................................................7 III. PARKS AND RECREATION ................................................................................................ 15 A. SECTION SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... -
EARLY HISTORY of PATUXENT WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER (Circa 1948) by Dr
1 EARLY HISTORY OF PATUXENT WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER (circa 1948) by Dr. L. B. Morley A REPORT ON THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PATUXENT RESEARCH REFUGE Introduction In the short span of twelve years the Patuxent Research Refuge has become an important institution in the program of wildlife restoration. It is a monument to those who have helped make it possible because they believed that research was a basic necessity. The Refuge was developed during the critical years of the depression and continued to progress through the turmoil of World War II. History was accelerated and little opportunity was given for the recording of events. Permanency has come to the Patuxent Refuge and with it organization and unfaltering progress toward the designed destiny. The period of confusion is past and the early construction scars have heeled. The function of the Refuge will remain an existing accomplishment, but the original incidents and events concerned with its founding and development already have become legendary. It is appropriate that the facts be recorded and that the history of the first national Wildlife Experiment Station be complete. Purpose The riotous squandering of our most valuable and priceless heritage, our natural resources, is appalling when we compare the duration of our national history with that of civilization. Many are cognizant of the recreational and economic importance of wildlife, and with the endless problems concerned with maintaining or restoring it, but too few, having no selfish or partisan interests, can or will contribute what is demanded. The new conception of wildlife requirements recognized the need for research as a prerequisite of building and administering an intelligent and practical program. -
Jurisdiction and Courts in Indian Country
JURISDICTION AND COURTS IN INDIAN COUNTRY Angelique Townsend EagleWoman (Wambdi A. WasteWin) Associate Professor of Law and James E. Rogers Fellow in American Indian Law University of Idaho College of Law Email: [email protected] DETERMINING LAND STATUS & CITIZENSHIP The inquiry begins with the status of the land for any issue involving jurisdiction and American Indians. Is the land within the tribal territorial boundaries? Is the land held in trust status by the U.S.? Is the land fee simple and who is the owner? The next question is who is involved in the jurisdictional inquiry – American Indian legally defined? Non-Indian? Finally, if Non-Indian, what activity is involved? Answering these questions will lead to determining whether there is exclusive tribal jurisdiction; concurrent tribal jurisdiction with concurrent federal jurisdiction; concurrent tribal jurisdiction with concurrent state jurisdiction; or exclusive state jurisdiction. INDIAN COUNTRY DEFINED IN U.S. LAW 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Criminal Statute part of Major Crimes Act): Except as otherwise provided in sections 1152 and 1156 of this title, the term “Indian country”, as used in this chapter, means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.