DOCSLIB.ORG

In Favor of the Non-Moving Party. Boucher, 880 F.3D at 365. in This

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Favor of the Non-Moving Party. Boucher, 880 F.3D at 365. in This U.S. v. BISHOP 335 Cite as 910 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018) in favor of the non-moving party. Boucher, 880 F.3d at 365. In this case, it appears UNITED STATES of America, that the district court drew at least one Plaintiff-Appellee, inference against the non-moving party. v. But any error was harmless. First, the district court had already stepped through Edward BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant. the correct contractual analysis and made No. 18-2019 its conclusion before any discussion of in- ferences to draw from the parties’ behav- United States Court of Appeals, ior after the incident had occurred. Sec- Seventh Circuit. ond, and more importantly, even if we Argued November 14, 2018 were to draw the opposite inference in Vesuvius’s favor, it would make no differ- Decided December 7, 2018 ence. We might infer that Vesuvius genu- Background: Defendant was charged inely believed that it had complied in full with discharging firearm during drug with its obligations under ¶ 22 by notifying transaction. The United States District ACBL of the problem on February 20, Court for the Northern District of Indiana, 2015. Vesuvius might then have genuinely No. 3:17-cr-55 RLM-MGG, Robert L. Mil- believed that it had all the time in the ler, Jr., J., denied defendant’s motion to world to bring suit, and it did so two years suppress evidence obtained during search later. But because we find that the con- of his cell phone, and, after jury convicted tract is not ambiguous, the parties’ actions him, 2018 WL 1616892, denied his motion after they signed the contract are irrele- for new trial. Defendant appealed. vant to the meaning of the contract itself. Regardless of whether we were to infer Holding: The Court of Appeals, Easter- from Vesuvius’s actions that it genuinely brook, Circuit Judge, held that search war- believed its own position or whether it rant satisfied Fourth Amendment’s partic- knew that its suit was untimely, the mean- ularity requirement. ing of the contract is the same. Affirmed. III. CONCLUSION Standing on its own, perhaps the limita- 1. Controlled Substances O147 tions provision of the contract might be With respect to the Fourth Amend- ambiguous. But read in context with the ment’s particularity requirement, a war- rest of the contract, there is no question rant authorizing a search of a house for that Vesuvius was required to file suit no drugs permits the police to search every- later than four months after it discovered where in the house, because ‘‘everywhere’’ the damage. Because Vesuvius waited two is where the contraband may be hidden. years to bring its claim, the district court U.S. Const. Amend. 4. properly dismissed it as untimely. Accord- ingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the 2. Searches and Seizures O148 district court. With respect to the Fourth Amend- ment’s particularity requirement, a war- , rant authorizing a search for documents that will prove a crime may authorize a search of every document the suspect has, 000001 336 910 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES because any of them might supply evi- EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. dence. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. A drug deal went wrong. After receiving a dose of pepper spray from his customer, 3. Searches and Seizures O125 Edward Bishop shot her in the arm. A Search warrant, which permitted jury convicted him of discharging a fire- search of every document on defendant’s arm during a drug transaction, 18 U.S.C. cell phone, satisfied Fourth Amendment’s § 924(c), and the judge sentenced him to particularity requirement; warrant stated 120 months’ imprisonment. He presents the crimes under investigation, i.e., crimi- one contention on appeal: that the warrant nal recklessness with deadly weapon and authorizing a search of his cell phone—a drug dealing, and police did not know search that turned up incriminating evi- where defendant kept his drug ledgers and dence—violated the Fourth Amendment’s gun videos until they searched the phone. requirement that every warrant ‘‘particu- U.S. Const. Amend. 4. larly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’’ 4. Searches and Seizures O125 This warrant described the ‘‘place to be With respect to the Fourth Amend- searched’’ as the cell phone Bishop carried ment’s particularity requirement, it is during the attempted sale, and it described enough if the warrant cabins the things the things to be seized as: being looked for by stating what crime is any evidence (including all photos, vid- under investigation. U.S. Const. Amend. eos, and/or any other digital files, includ- 4. ing removable memory cards) of suspect identity, motive, scheme/plan along with 5. Searches and Seizures O124 DNA evidence of the crime of Criminal With respect to the Fourth Amend- Recklessness with a deadly weapon ment’s particularity requirement, a war- which is hidden or secreted [in the cell- rant may be thought too general only if phone or] related to the offense of Deal- some more-specific alternative would have ing illegal drugs. done better at protecting privacy while That is too general, Bishop asserts, be- still permitting legitimate investigation. cause it authorized the police to rummage U.S. Const. Amend. 4. through every application and file on the phone and left to the officers’ judgment the decision which files met the descrip- Appeal from the United States District tion. The district court found the warrant Court for the Northern District of Indiana, valid, however, and denied the motion to South Bend Division. No. 3:17-cr-55 RLM- suppress. MGG—Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge. [1, 2] Bishop is right about the facts. This warrant does permit the police to look Nathaniel Whalen, Attorney, OFFICE at every file on his phone and decide which OF THE UNITED STATES ATTOR- files satisfy the description. But he is NEY, Hammond, IN, Plaintiff-Appellee. wrong to think that this makes a warrant William J. Stevens, Attorney, Bridgman, too general. Criminals don’t advertise MI, for Defendant-Appellant. where they keep evidence. A warrant au- thorizing a search of a house for drugs Before EASTERBROOK, SYKES, and permits the police to search everywhere in SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. the house, because ‘‘everywhere’’ is where 000002 U.S. v. BISHOP 337 Cite as 910 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018) the contraband may be hidden. United instrumentalities and evidence of States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820–21, 102 crime at this [time] unknown. S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); Steele v. 427 U.S. at 480–81 n.10, 96 S.Ct. 2737 United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. (emphasis added). Andresen accepted the 414, 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925). And a warrant propriety of looking at every document in authorizing a search for documents that his possession but maintained that the ital- will prove a crime may authorize a search icized phrase entitled the agents to seize of every document the suspect has, be- anything they wanted. The Justices con- cause any of them might supply evidence. cluded, however, that, when read in con- To see this, it isn’t necessary to look be- text, the contested language did no more yond Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, than permit the seizure of any other evi- 96 S.Ct. 2737, 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976), in dence pertaining to real-estate fraud, the which the Court considered a warrant that subject of the warrant. Id. at 479–82, 96 permitted a search of every document in a S.Ct. 2737. lawyer’s files. Agents were authorized to [3, 4] Just so with this warrant. It per- search for: mits the search of every document on the title notes, title abstracts, title run- cell phone, which (like a computer) serves downs; contracts of sale and/or assign- the same function as the filing cabinets in ments from Raffaele Antonelli and Andresen’s office. See Riley v. California, Rocco Caniglia to Mount Vernon De- 573 U.S. 373, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2489, 189 velopment Corporation and/or others; L.Ed.2d 430 (2014). And as with filing lien payoff correspondence and lien cabinets, the incriminating evidence may pay-off memoranda to and from lien- be in any file or folder. That’s why courts holders and noteholders; correspon- routinely conclude that warrants with dence and memoranda to and from wording similar to the one at issue here trustees of deeds of trust; lenders in- are valid. See, e.g., Archer v. Chisholm, structions for a construction loan or 870 F.3d 603, 616 (7th Cir. 2017); United construction and permanent loan; dis- States v. Hall, 142 F.3d 988, 996–97 (7th bursement sheets and disbursement Cir. 1998); Wayne R. LaFave, 2 Search & memoranda; checks, check stubs and Seizure § 4.6(d) (5th ed. 2012 & Supp. ledger sheets indicating disbursement 2018) (citing many other cases). It is upon settlement; correspondence and enough, these decisions hold, if the war- memoranda concerning disbursements rant cabins the things being looked for by upon settlement; settlement statements stating what crime is under investigation. and settlement memoranda; fully or [5] Andresen and its successors show partially prepared deed of trust releas- that specificity is a relative matter. A war- es, whether or not executed and rant may be thought ‘‘too general’’ only if whether or not recorded; books, rec- some more-specific alternative would have ords, documents, papers, memoranda done better at protecting privacy while and correspondence, showing or tend- still permitting legitimate investigation. ing to show a fraudulent intent, and/or See United States v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Opinions for the Week of February 1 – February 5, 2021 Albert Richardson
    Opinions for the week of February 1 – February 5, 2021 Albert Richardson, Jr. v. USA No. 20-1915 Submitted January 27, 2021 — Decided February 1, 2021 Case Type: Prisoner Southern District of Illinois. No. 92-cr-30116-SMY — Staci M. Yandle, Judge. Before MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge; MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge; AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. ORDER Albert Richardson appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of coram nobis… Richardson filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis with the district court that presided over his 1992 conviction, arguing that sentencing errors in that case led to an undue sentence enhancement for his current conviction… Even so, Richardson is not entitled to relief. A writ of coram nobis is “to be used only in extraordinary cases” where it is necessary “to achieve justice...” He mounts no meaningful challenge to his 1992 conviction; he challenges only the lawfulness of the resulting sentence. An error in a defendant’s sentence is not so “fundamental” as to render the conviction itself “invalid…” AFFIRMED Laura Ann Harris-Patterson v. Andrew Saul No. 20-1805 Argued January 26, 2021 — Decided February 1, 2021 Case Type: Civil Western District of Wisconsin. No. 19-cv-487-bbc — Barbara B. Crabb, Judge. Before DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge; FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge; THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge. ORDER An administrative law judge denied Laura Harris-Patterson’s application for disability benefits, and a district judge affirmed that decision. 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64149 (W.D.
    [Show full text]
  • IILP Review 2014: the State of Diversity and Inclusion in the Legal Profession © 2014 Institute for Inclusion in the Legal Profession All Rights Reserved
    IILP Review 2014: The State of Diversity and Inclusion in the Legal Profession © 2014 Institute for Inclusion in the Legal Profession All rights reserved. IILP Review 2014: The State of Diversity and Inclusion in the Legal Profession IILP Review 2014 •••• 1 Editorial Board Editor-in-Chief Elizabeth Chambliss Editorial Board Robert T. Cichocki Brian W. Duwe Sharon E. Jones Sandra S. Yamate Articles Editors Chelsea J. Clark Amanda Reasoner Editorial Assistants Janet J. Lee Michelle Musielewicz The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author of each article or essay and not necessarily those of the Institute for Inclusion in the Legal Profes- sion or the employer of any author. Any individuals who may be quoted in specific articles and who are identified in connection with their employer are not representing the views, opinions, or positions of their employer unless that representation is specifically noted. 2 •••• IILP Review 2014 Table of Contents 8 Letter from the Chair 9 Letter from the Editor-in-Chief 10 Letter from The Claro Group 11 About IILP 11 About the IILP Review: The State of Diversity and Inclusion in the Legal Profession The State of Diversity and Inclusion in the Legal Profession 13 Demographic Summary by Elizabeth Chambliss 37 The Dean Scene by Chelsea J. Clark 38 Explaining the Bar By Numbers: Diversity Challenges at the Bar for England and Wales By Sam Mercer 46 Diversity in the Legal Profession of England and Wales By Nicholas Fluck Diversity and Inclusion in the Legal Profession in General 57 Fisher v. University of Texas: Surviving Scrutiny in a Post-Fisher World By Melinda S.
    [Show full text]
  • Frank V. Walker, No. 14-2058 and LULAC of Wisconsin V. Deininger
    In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 14-2058 & 14-2059 RUTHELLE FRANK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SCOTT WALKER, Governor of Wisconsin, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC) OF WISCONSIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DAVID G. DEININGER, Member, Government Accountability Board, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeals froM the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Nos. 11-CV-01128 & 12-CV-00185 — Lynn Adelman, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 — DECIDED OCTOBER 6, 2014 ____________________ 2 Nos. 14-2058 & 14-2059 Before EASTERBROOK,SYKES, and TINDER, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Since 2005 Indiana has re- quired voters to present photographic identification at the polls. The Supreme Court held that this statute is compatible with the Constitution. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). In May 2011 Wisconsin enacted a similar statute, 2011 Wis. Act 23. A district court held that Act 23 is unconstitutional and enjoined its implementation. Frank v. Walker, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59344 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2014), stay denied, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111811 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 13, 2014). After receiving briefs and argument, we stayed that injunction. Order issued Sept. 12, 2014; reconsid- eration denied Sept. 26, 2014; opinions issued Sept. 30, 2014. We now reverse the injunction, because the district court’s findings do not justify an outcome different from Crawford. The Justices observed that a commission chaired by for- mer President Carter had recommended the use of photo ID to verify a person’s entitlement to vote.
    [Show full text]
  • Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)
    Federal Judges Association - Members by Circuit (as of January 3, 2017) 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Bruce M. Selya Jeffrey R. Howard Kermit Victor Lipez Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson Sandra L. Lynch United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby George Z. Singal John A. Woodcock, Jr. Jon David LeVy Nancy Torresen United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs Denise Jefferson Casper Douglas P. Woodlock F. Dennis Saylor George A. O'Toole, Jr. Indira Talwani Leo T. Sorokin Mark G. Mastroianni Mark L. Wolf Michael A. Ponsor Patti B. Saris Richard G. Stearns Timothy S. Hillman William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Joseph N. LaPlante Landya B. McCafferty Paul J. Barbadoro SteVen J. McAuliffe United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Daniel R. Dominguez Francisco Augusto Besosa Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory Juan M. Perez-Gimenez Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez United States District Court District of Rhode Island Ernest C. Torres John J. McConnell, Jr. Mary M. Lisi William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Barrington D. Parker, Jr. Christopher F. Droney Dennis Jacobs Denny Chin Gerard E. Lynch Guido Calabresi John Walker, Jr. Jon O. Newman Jose A. Cabranes Peter W. Hall Pierre N. LeVal Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Reena Raggi Robert A. Katzmann Robert D. Sack United States District Court District of Connecticut Alan H. NeVas, Sr. Alfred V. Covello Alvin W. Thompson Dominic J. Squatrito Ellen B.
    [Show full text]
  • A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Critics Lynn Adelman
    Marquette Law Review Volume 91 Article 2 Issue 2 Winter 2007 Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Critics Lynn Adelman Shelley Fite Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Lynn Adelman and Shelley Fite, Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Critics, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 425 (2007). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol91/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW Volume 91 Winter 2007 Number 2 EXERCISING JUDICIAL POWER: A RESPONSE TO THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT'S CRITICS THE HONORABLE LYNN ADELMAN* SHELLEY FITE** I. INTRODUCTION In recent years, legal conservatives in Wisconsin have strongly criticized the performance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A former member of the court, Diane Sykes, now a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, warned that the court had undergone a "dramatic shift," "depart[ed] from ... familiar and long- accepted" constraints on its power, and failed to exercise its power judiciously.' She called on Wisconsin lawyers to "sit up and take notice.",2 Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Michael B. Brennan echoed Judge Sykes's criticisms, stating that the court's actions raised concerns "about the proper exercise of judicial authority under the state's constitution and laws." 3 And Milwaukee lawyer Rick Esenberg published a paper under the aegis of the Federalist Society, quoting former congressman Dick Armey for the proposition that the court had * Lynn Adelman is a United States District Judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and a former Wisconsin legislator.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ______
    Case: 14-2058 Document: 74 Filed: 10/06/2014 Pages: 23 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 14-2058 & 14-2059 RUTHELLE FRANK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SCOTT WALKER, Governor of Wisconsin, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC) OF WISCONSIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DAVID G. DEININGER, Member, Government Accountability Board, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeals froM the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Nos. 11-CV-01128 & 12-CV-00185 — Lynn Adelman, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 — DECIDED OCTOBER 6, 2014 ____________________ Case: 14-2058 Document: 74 Filed: 10/06/2014 Pages: 23 2 Nos. 14-2058 & 14-2059 Before EASTERBROOK, SYKES, and TINDER, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Since 2005 Indiana has re- quired voters to present photographic identification at the polls. The Supreme Court held that this statute is coMpatible with the Constitution. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). In May 2011 Wisconsin enacted a similar statute, 2011 Wis. Act 23. A district court held that Act 23 is unconstitutional and enjoined its implementation. Frank v. Walker, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59344 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2014), stay denied, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111811 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 13, 2014). After receiving briefs and argument, we stayed that injunction. Order issued Sept. 12, 2014; reconsid- eration denied Sept. 26, 2014; opinions issued Sept. 30, 2014. We now reverse the injunction, because the district court’s findings do not justify an outcoMe different froM Crawford.
    [Show full text]
  • EMPLOYMENT Litigation News and Analysis • Legislation • Regulation • Expert Commentary VOLUME 31, ISSUE 3 / AUGUST 30, 2016
    Westlaw Journal EMPLOYMENT Litigation News and Analysis • Legislation • Regulation • Expert Commentary VOLUME 31, ISSUE 3 / AUGUST 30, 2016 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS WHAT’S INSIDE AMERICANS WITH U.S. judge rejects Uber’s driver expenses settlement DISABILITIES ACT 9 Teacher can’t reconcile total (Reuters) – A U.S. judge Aug. 18 rejected an attempt by Uber Technologies Inc. to disability benefits with ADA claims, appeals court says settle a class-action lawsuit with drivers who claimed they were employees and Stallings v. Detroit Public entitled to expenses. Schools (6th Cir.) O’Connor et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al., AGE DISCRIMINATION No. 13-cv-3826; Yucesoy et al. v. Uber Technologies 10 Pulitzer Prize-winning Inc. et al., No. 15-cv-262, 2016 WL 4398271 reporter accuses L.A. Times (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2016). of age discrimination Gottlieb v. Los Angeles In a case that has been closely watched in Silicon Times Communications Valley, where many companies use on-demand (Cal. Super. Ct.) workers, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San GENDER DISCRIMINATION Francisco ruled the settlement was not fair or adequate for Uber drivers. 11 7th Circuit says Title VII does not apply to gay workers Some drivers had objected to terms of the Hively v. Ivy Tech Community settlement valued at up to $100 million, which REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson College (7th Cir.) The suit said Uber drivers should be deemed employees and reimbursed would have affected roughly 385,000 current and for expenses such as gasoline and vehicle maintenance. An Uber car in former drivers in California and Massachusetts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roberts Court's Assault on Democracy
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLP\14-1\HLP102.txt unknown Seq: 1 30-JAN-20 10:23 The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy Lynn Adelman* This article argues that economic and political developments in the last fifty years have in many respects undermined America’s democratic institutions and that, instead of working to strengthen democracy, the Supreme Court over which Chief Justice Roberts presides, is substantially contributing to its erosion. The Court has done this in two ways, first by carrying on a sustained assault on the right of poor people and minorities to vote. The Court has virtually eviscerated the landmark Voting Rights Act, it has upheld strict voter identification laws that serve no purpose other than to make voting more difficult, and it has authorized states to purge thousands of people from the voting rolls. In addition, the Court has abdicated its responsibility to end the anti-democratic process of partisan gerry- mandering. The second way in which the Court is weakening democracy is by reinforcing the enormous imbalance in wealth and political power that has developed in recent decades and that has contributed to undermining democracy. The Court has done this by consist- ently strengthening the economic and political power of corporations and wealthy individ- uals, as, for example, through its campaign finance decisions, and by reducing that of ordinary Americans as, for example, through its decisions involving labor unions, forced arbitration and the expansion of Medicaid. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 131 I. BACKGROUND ............................................. 133 R II. THE COURT’S ATTACK ON THE VOTING RIGHTS OF POOR PEOPLE AND MINORITIES .................................
    [Show full text]
  • (“ERISA”) Decisions As They Were Reported on Westlaw Between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016
    DRAFT * This document is a case summary compilation of select Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) decisions as they were reported on Westlaw between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016. Nothing in this document constitutes legal advice. Case summaries prepared by Michelle L. Roberts, Partner, Roberts Bartolic LLP, 1050 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 105, Alameda, CA 94501. © Roberts Bartolic LLP I. Attorneys’ Fees .................................................................................................................. 11 A. First Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 11 B. Second Circuit ................................................................................................................................. 11 C. Third Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 14 D. Fourth Circuit .................................................................................................................................. 14 E. Fifth Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 15 F. Sixth Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 16 G. Seventh Circuit ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Docket EASTERN DISTRICT of WISCONSIN Annual Meeting Edition - March 2014 BAR ASSOCIATION
    EDWBA The Docket EASTERN DISTRICT of WISCONSIN Annual Meeting Edition - March 2014 BAR ASSOCIATION EDWBA LEADERSHIP From the President EXECUTIVE COMMITTee PresideNT On behalf of the Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar discuss shifts in federal Anthony (Tony) S. Baish VICE PresideNT Association, I am pleased to invite you to attend our narcotics prosecutions. Scott W. Hansen 2014 Annual Meeting and Presentation, which will The bankruptcy SECreTarY Sandra R. Gegios take place on Thursday, April 10, at the Milwaukee program will examine TreasUrer Athletic Club. the implications of the T. Wickham Schmidt Supreme Court’s upcoming PasT PresideNT This is our Twelfth Annual Meeting and Presentation, Allen C. Schlinsog, Jr. Bellingham decision. PROGraM CO-Chairs and as always, it is the highlight of the EDWBA’s Donald A. Daugherty, Jr. year. This year’s programming follows a general Our luncheon will begin Julie P. Wilson BOard OF DireCTOrs theme: changes to the practice of law. We will with a keynote address Craig W. Albee Melinda Hein Bialzik discuss not only changes to substantive law, but also from Judge James A. Wynn, Jr., of the Fourth Circuit Hon. Michael B. Brennan challenges presented by advancing technology, new Court of Appeals. After Judge Wynn’s remarks, we Christopher D. Donovan Michelle L. Jacobs methods of delivering legal services, and evolving will recognize this year’s award winners – all deserving Laura Schulteis Kwaterski Susan E. Lovern ethical obligations. And, of course, we will offer of our acknowledgement and appreciation for their Eric L. Maassen ample opportunity for members of our bench and bar service to the betterment of our District’s legal Cassandra H.
    [Show full text]
  • Voter ID in Wisconsin: a Better Approach to Anderson/Burdick Balancing, 10 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV
    SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 10, Issue 2 Spring 2015 VOTER ID IN WISCONSIN: A BETTER APPROACH TO ANDERSON BURDICK BALANCING * MATTHEW R. PIKOR Cite as: Matthew R. Pikor, Voter ID in Wisconsin: A Better Approach to Anderson/Burdick Balancing, 10 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 465 (2015), at http://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/Documents/Academic Programs/7CR/v10-2/pikor.pdf. INTRODUCTION Ruthelle Frank was born in her home in Brokaw, Wisconsin, in 1927.1 Her mother made a record of her birth in the family Bible, but the state did not issue her a birth certificate.2 A lifelong resident of Wisconsin, she currently serves her community as an elected member of the Brokaw Village Board.3 She has exercised her right to vote in every election since 1948.4 * J.D. candidate, May 2016, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology; B.S.C., Business Management, DePaul University, 2008. I would like to thank Professor Mark Rosen and Professor Atiba Ellis for their guidance. I would also like to thank my mother and grandmother for their patience and support. 1 Jon Sherman, Out in the Cold at Age 84: Wisconsin’s Ruthelle Frank Fights for Her Right to Vote, Voter Disfranchisement, ACLU (Dec. 13, 2011, 11:39am), https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/out-cold-age-84-wisconsins-ruthelle-frank- fights-her-right-vote. 2 Id. 3 ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Wisconsin’s Unconstitutional Voter ID Law, Voting Rights, ACLU (Dec. 13, 2011), https://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/aclu- files-lawsuit-challenging-wisconsins-unconstitutional-voter-id-law.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ———— RUTHELLE FRANK, Et Al., Petitioners, V
    No. 14-___ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— RUTHELLE FRANK, et al., Petitioners, v. SCOTT WALKER, et al., Respondents, -and- LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC) OF WISCONSIN, et al., Petitioners, v. THOMAS BARLAND, et al., Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ———— QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented are: 1. Whether Wisconsin’s voter ID law violates the Equal Protection Clause. 2. Whether Wisconsin’s voter ID law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Students should not brief the issue of standing TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPENDIX A: Opinion and Final Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Oct. 6, 2014) ..................................................... 1a APPENDIX B: Decision and Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Apr. 29, 2014) ........................................ 25a APPENDIX C: Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit staying mandate (Oct. 15, 2014) .................................... 127a APPENDIX D: Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denying rehearing en banc and Opinion dissenting from the denial (Oct. 10, 2014) .................................................................. 129a APPENDIX E: Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit respecting the denial of rehearing en banc of the panel order staying permanent injunction (Sept. 30, 2014) .......................................................... 172a APPENDIX F: Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denying rehearing en banc of the panel order staying permanent injunction (Sept. 26, 2014) ................................................................... 186a APPENDIX G: Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit staying permanent injunction (Sept.
    [Show full text]