DOCSLIB.ORG

Judicial Department of Arkansas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judicial Department of Arkansas If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ELEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT, .. ' .~~ .... ·.c--·'~~·-:-·I i ".' .... · ... .,. I ~-=-' . .::.-...... n:::e;nG;:::ACt:I:w=a: _~,_.~~- .-"~ JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT OF ARKANSAS 975 JUDICIAL STATISTICS Compiled By The Office of EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ELEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT OF ARKANSAS NCJRS M~'( ~ 5 1979 1975 JUDICIAL STATISTICS Compiled By The Office of EXECUTIVE SECRETARY "To be effective, judicial administration must not be leadfooted." Frankfurter, J. Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, at 325 (1940) iii CHIEF' JUSTICE CARLETON HARRIS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY C. R. HUIE COURT PLANNER 150'.3715.700' STATE OF ARKANSAS LARRY JEGLEY 150'·37'·22915 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT RESEARCH COORDINATOR JACK JARRETT JEAN LANGFORD 150'·37'·22915 JUSTICE BUILDING 501.37'·22915 CHIEF. A"'ALYTICAL SERVICES INTER·AGENCY COORDINATOR JIM ~IENDERSON LITTLE ROCK 72201 TIM MASSANELLI 1501·371·22915 50'.371·22915 To the Honorable, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Arkansas,; For its Bleventh Annual Report the office of Executive Secretary of the Judicial Department submits her.ewith a report of the activities of the courts of Arkansas and statistical data covering the calendar year 1975 together with comparative data of previous years. It is hoped that the contents of the report will be of value to you in making policy decisions as Administrative Director of Arkansas courts, and of assist~nce to the executive and legislative branches of the government in their deliberations. Respectfully, --/J~L vL-cS C. R. Huie Executive Secretary v SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK CARLETON HARRIS To the Honorable David Pryor, Governor and Members of the seventieth General Assembly Submitted herewith is the Eleventh Annual Report of the Executive Secretary of the Judicial Department of Arkansas. The Report includes court statistics for the year 1975 with comparative data for previous years. It will be noted that the 479 appeals handled by the Supreme Court during 1975 represents an all time high and an increase of 8.9 percent over the level recorded during 1974. Criminal appeals totaled 165 during 1975 and account for a major part of the increase, rising by 60.6 percent over the level of 127 recorded during 1974 and surpassing the old record set in 1972 by nearly 15 percent. Justices of the Supreme Court wrote an average of over 65 opinions each in 1975 as compared with an average of 58 during 1974, substantially above the national average for states \'.'ithout an intermediate appellate court. Despite the heCl,vy workload. the Court remains current. The workloaJ, in Circuit and Chancery Courts continued to set new records, total filings in Circuit Court reaching an all time high of 32,795 an increase of 14.5 percent over 1974 and Chancery filings (excluding probate) totaled 28,791, 2.6 percent over 1974. In spite of record terminations in both Circuit and Chancery Court total backlog increased slightly. Work of the Supreme Court Committees on Model Jury Instructions and new Rules of Civil Proced~re is progressing at a satisfactory pace and it is anticipated that reports from these committees will be forth­ coming in 1977. Assignment of judges continues to be a most valuable asset in providing temporary relief in meeting the problem of docket congestion and in providing flexibility of administration. It is hoped that the Report herewith submitted will be of assistance to you in your further consideration of matters affecting the administra­ tion of justice in Arkansas. Respectfully submitted, @,-(lJ2___ ~ Carleton Harris Chief Justice vi TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ................................................................... ix Arkansas Judicial System Chart ............................................ xi THE SUPREME COU~T ......................................................... 1 Supreme Court Statistics ................................................... 6 Workload Graph ............................................................ 9 GENERAL JURISDICTION COURTS ............................................. 12 Workload Graphs .......................................................... 16 Assignment of Judges ..................................................... 21 Comparative Tables ....................................................... 24 Prosecuting Ai.~orneys ..................................................... 30 Public Defenders .......................................................... 35 Court Repurters ........................................................... 37 Clerks of the Courts ....................................................... 38 Circuit Court Statistics ..................................................... 41 Chancery Court Statistics .................................................. 57 Probate Court Statistics .................................................... 69 LIMITED JURISDICTION COURTS .............................................. 72 County Judges .................................................. ........ 75 Juvenile Court Referees ................................................... 77 Courts of Common Pleas .................................................. 79 Municipal Courts .......................................................... 80 Municipal Court Statistics .................................................. 84 City and Police Courts ..................................................... 87 City and Police Court Statistics ............................................. 88 Justice of the Peace Courts ................................................ 92 Justice of the Peace Court Statistics ........................................ 93 vii -----,----------------------------------------------------- Justice is the supreme !,irluf' u,hic!t harmonizes all other virtues. PLATO FOREWORD The Arkansas Court System, established by the A partial unification of the c.ourt system occured in Constitution of 1874, still maintains separate courts of 1965 when the General Ass('ltnbly passed Act 496 in law and equity. Judges of courts of law are designated which the Chief Justice WdS designated the ad­ Circuit Judges and those of courts of equity are ministrative director of the Judicial Department and designated Chancellors. Circuit Judges are elected to administrative i1ead of the entire court system. Act the bench by the voters of their respective JudiCial 496 also prov;ded forthe appointment of an Executive Circuits every four years. Chano'liors are likewise Secretary, by the Chief Justice and with the approval of the State Judicial Council, wh,Jse duties consist of as­ elected by popular votr:;! in t:;n' ,.,~ pective Chancery Circuits to terms of ,)ffk',' ·-;f s!)\ years. sisting the Chief Justice: iq carrying out his ad· ministrative responsibiliti~:s Generally speaking, ClrcuitJudges preside overcivil One of the r;hief fun':tjon~> (If the office of Executive and criminal cases and hear a~,peals from courts of limited jurisdiction. Chancellors hear cases involving Secretary is the collection, analysis, and publication of domestic relations matters, land disputes, reciprocal judicial statistics The JudIcial Department of Arkan· support actions, and other cases where equitable sas also conduc.ts contuluiilF: judicial education relief is sought. They also serve as Probate Judges, programs for all levels of personnel in the State's court hearing cases invoiving Wills, guardianships, adop· system through assistance from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and the Arkansas Public tions, mental commitments, and oth(~r such probate Safety program matters. Appeals from Circuit dnd Ci1Clllcery Courts are taken The statistics contClint:!d in this repot L CAre supplied directly to the Arkansas Supreme Court, there being through quarter!v renorts from the clerks of courts of no intermediate court !If appeals in the Arkansas general jurisdiction and through semi-annual reports from courts of limited jurisdiction. Clerks of these judicial system. courts are assisted from time to time by the staffofthe The Arkansas public is als(. served by courts of Judicial Department. limited jurisdiction. which are descnbed later in this Analysis and planning are basic to any well­ Report. Perhaps the most Important of these courts managed operation. Through the collection and are the Municipal Courts, which number 92 and are dissemination of the data contained in this report, the only courts of limited Jurisdiction requiringthatthe analysis and planning are expedited in the judge be an attorney (some County Courts are, management of the Arkansas court system. however, served by juvenile referees who are at· torneys). Generally speaking, jurisdiction of a Municipal Court is countywide, and extends to traffic matters, misdemeanor criminal cases, and civil cases when the amount in controversy does not exceed COURT ACTIVITY $300. As noted earl!er, ilppeals from courts of limited jurisdiction are to Circuit Court. The workload of the Supreme Court reached a near­ record level during 1975, setting a record inthe area of This Report, covering all phases of the Arkansas criminal appeals. Filings in courts of general juris­ judicial system, carries statistics on courts of general diction rose to record highs, as did filings in courts of jurisdiction and courts of limited jurisdiction in limited jurisdiction. separate divisions. Statistics regarding the offices of Public Defender in the State a re a Iso carried in order to reflect the extent
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arkansas Department of Health 1913 – 2013
    Old State House, original site of the Arkansas Department of Health 100 years of service Arkansas Department of Health 1913 – 2013 100yearsCover4.indd 1 1/11/2013 8:15:48 AM 100 YEARS OF SERVICE Current Arkansas Department of Health Location Booklet Writing/Editing Team: Ed Barham, Katheryn Hargis, Jan Horton, Maria Jones, Vicky Jones, Kerry Krell, Ann Russell, Dianne Woodruff, and Amanda Worrell The team of Department writers who compiled 100 Years of Service wishes to thank the many past and present employees who generously provided information, materials, and insight. Cover Photo: Reprinted with permission from the Old State House Museum. The Old State House was the original site of the permanent Arkansas State Board of Health in 1913. Arkansas Department of Health i 100 YEARS OF SERVICE Table of Contents A MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR ................................................................................................. 1 PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 4 INFECTIOUS DISEASE .......................................................................................................................... 4 IMMUNIZATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 8 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Supreme Court
    ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT State Contracts Over $50,000 Awarded To Minority Owned Businesses Fiscal Year 2020 None Employment Summary Male Female Total % White Employees 13 29 42 89 % Black Employees 2 1 3 6 % Other Racial Minorities 1 1 2 5 % Total Minorities 5 11 % Total Employees 47 100 % Publications A.C.A. 25-1-201 et seq. Required for Unbound Black & Cost of Unbound Statutory # of Reason(s) for Continued White Copies Copies Produced Name General Authorization Governor Copies Publication and Distribution Produced During During the Last Assembly the Last Two Years Two Years Arkansas Reports/ AR Appellate ACA 16-11-201; AR Supreme N N 0 Publication of the Supreme Court opinions 0 0.00 Reports Court Rule 5-2 ceased with volume 375 Ark/104 Ark. App. These opinions are now published online. IN RE: Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rule 5-2 (May 28, 2009) ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT - 0032 Page 1 Honorable John Dan Kemp, Chief Justice ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT - 0032 Honorable John Dan Kemp, Chief Justice Department Appropriation Summary Historical Data Agency Request and Executive Recommendation 2019-2020 2020-2021 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 Appropriation Actual Pos Budget Pos Authorized Pos Agency Pos Executive Pos Agency Pos Executive Pos 008 Supreme Court - Operations 5,155,467 48 6,013,886 48 5,329,935 48 5,958,765 48 0 0 5,959,010 48 0 0 C66 SC Bar of Arkansas-Cash 3,753,854 25 5,075,000 25 5,075,000 25 5,279,200 25 0 0 5,279,200 25 0 0 Total 8,909,321 73 11,088,886 73 10,404,935 73 11,237,965 73 0 0 11,238,210 73 0 0 Funding Sources % % % % % % State Central Services 4000035 5,155,467 57.9 6,013,886 54.2 5,958,765 53.0 0 0.0 5,959,010 53.0 0 0.0 Cash Fund 4000045 3,753,854 42.1 5,075,000 45.8 5,279,200 47.0 0 0.0 5,279,200 47.0 0 0.0 Total Funds 8,909,321 100.0 11,088,886 100.0 11,237,965 100.0 0 0.0 11,238,210 100.0 0 0.0 Excess Appropriation/(Funding) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 8,909,321 11,088,886 11,237,965 0 11,238,210 0 FY21 Budget amount in 008 exceeds the authorized amount due to salary and matching rate adjustments during the 2019-2021 Biennium.
    [Show full text]
  • 12/5/78 Folder Citation: Collection
    12/5/78 Folder Citation: Collection: Office of Staff Secretary; Series: Presidential Files; Folder: 12/5/78; Container 99 To See Complete Finding Aid: http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Staff_Secretary.pdf .. ,, WITHDRAWAL SHE.ET (PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES) fORM OF DATE RESTR'ICJION DOCUMENT CORRESPONDENTS OR TITLE , Memo ~oar" ' 8ee1tel t:e fi es. Cat Let, w/atta.cl:uaents ·4 pp., re:NFtTO 'weapOJi:l.&­ 12/4/78 A ~u/· , .... ~1/f:.. J./LC- JJJ -JI'~Jt-l..,, 1 l' G(.Q /11 M;emo. Kraft & Miller ·to P'r:·e·s. Carter, I w/attachments 5 pp., re:recommendations 11/29/78: c ,,'>1' 't> • h ,.> ,.: '' '\ .:·/,' ,·' ' ,,' ~ ·O < ' "<1' ¢. :J' "',G f.' ' '( ., ""'• . ' tr' i' _·, . .- . ·~ ,, ., ~ '· " FILE LOCA:TION Cq:rter Pr~sidential Paper:s-Staff Offices, Office of Sta,ff Sec. -Presidential Handwriting File, 12/5/78 Box 111 ,· ~·:. '' RESTRICTION CODES (A) CloseCI by Executive Order 12356'governing access to patlonal Security information. (B) Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document. (C) Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in the donor's deed of gif.t. N~T:iONAL ARCHIVES·AND'RECORDS ADMINISTRATION. THE PRESIDENT'S -SCHEDULE Tuesday - December 5, 1978 8:15 Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski - The Oval Office. 9:00 Budget Appeals Session. (Mr. James Mcintyre). (2 hrs.) The Cabinet Room. ... 11:00 Mr. Jody Powell The Oval Office. 11:30 Vice President Walter F. Mondale, Admiral ( 30 min.) Stansfield.Turn~r, Dr. ~bigniew Brzezinski and Mr. Hamilton Jordan - The Oval Office. 1:00 Mr. James Mcintyre et al - The Cabinet Room. (60 min.) 2:10 Drop-By Humphrey Scholarship Program ( 10 min.) Kickoff.
    [Show full text]
  • ("DSCC") Files This Complaint Seeking an Immediate Investigation by the 7
    COMPLAINT BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION CBHMISSIOAl INTRODUCTXON - 1 The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ("DSCC") 7-_. J _j. c files this complaint seeking an immediate investigation by the 7 c; a > Federal Election Commission into the illegal spending A* practices of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (WRSCIt). As the public record shows, and an investigation will confirm, the NRSC and a series of ostensibly nonprofit, nonpartisan groups have undertaken a significant and sustained effort to funnel "soft money101 into federal elections in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended or "the Act"), 2 U.S.C. 5s 431 et seq., and the Federal Election Commission (peFECt)Regulations, 11 C.F.R. 85 100.1 & sea. 'The term "aoft money" as ueed in this Complaint means funds,that would not be lawful for use in connection with any federal election (e.g., corporate or labor organization treasury funds, contributions in excess of the relevant contribution limit for federal elections). THE FACTS IN TBIS CABE On November 24, 1992, the state of Georgia held a unique runoff election for the office of United States Senator. Georgia law provided for a runoff if no candidate in the regularly scheduled November 3 general election received in excess of 50 percent of the vote. The 1992 runoff in Georg a was a hotly contested race between the Democratic incumbent Wyche Fowler, and his Republican opponent, Paul Coverdell. The Republicans presented this election as a %ust-win81 election. Exhibit 1. The Republicans were so intent on victory that Senator Dole announced he was willing to give up his seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee for Coverdell, if necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • John Stroud Oral History
    Arkansas Supreme Court Project Arkansas Supreme Court Historical Society Interview with Justice John Stroud Little Rock, Arkansas November 7th, 2013 Interviewer: Ernest Dumas Ernest Dumas: This is November 7th, 2013. This is Ernie Dumas and I’m at the Little Rock home of Judge John Stroud at the Round River Condominiums in Little Rock. Judge, I need to ask your permission for the David and Barbara Pryor Center for Oral and Visual History and the Arkansas Supreme Court Historical Society, which will have ownership of this tape, to use it on the web or in the archives or whatever. John Stroud: You have my full permission. ED: OK. JS: And this isn’t my home. I have lived for a long time and still do in Texarkana, Arkansas. ED: Yes. JS: But this was my abode during the Court of Appeals and I’ve just kept it. ED: And so for convenience sake today. JS: Right. ED: Rather than my driving down to Texarkana we’re doing this here in Little Rock. JS: Right, absolutely. ED: Well, Judge, you had a long, long career not only in the law but in a lot of other civic activities, but we’re going to concentrate on your life and the law and the courts. Let’s start with your birth. When and where you were born and your momma and daddy. 1 JS: I was born on October 3, 1931, in Hope, Arkansas. My father was John Fred Stroud. He went by Fred and I’m the junior. ED: The F in your name is Fred as well? JS: Yes, but I go by John.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellate Update January 2020
    APPELLATE LJPDATE PUBLISHED BY THE JANUARY 2O2O ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS VOLUME 27, NO. 5 Appellate Update is a service provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts to assist in locating published decisions of the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. It is.not an official publication of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be a complete summary of each case; rather, it highlights some of the issues in the case. A case of interest can be found in its entirety by searching this website: https ://opinions. arcourts. gov/ark/enlnav' do ANNOUNCEMENTS On December 19,2019, amendments to the Rule and Regulations governing Court Reporters were published for comment. The comment period expires on March 31,2020. CRIMINAL Harper v. State,2020 Ark. App, 4 [Ark. Code Ann. $ 16-39-1151 Appellant sought disclosure and review of notes taken by the prosecutor during an interview with the victim. After conducting an in camera review, the circuit court concluded that: (1) the prosecutor's notes were not a statement as defined by Arkansas Code Annotated $ 16-89-115; (2) the notes contained no information that probably would have changed the outcome of the trial; and (3) the nondisclosure of the notes is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the information in the notes was readily available through other discovery provided in the case by the State. Arkansas Code on direct Annotated $ 16-89-115(b) provides that after awitness called by the State has testified examination, the court on motion of the defendant shall order the State to produce any statement of the witness in the possession of the State that relates to the subject matter about which the -1- witness has testified.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures
    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment and Garnishment in the Federal Courts
    Michigan Law Review Volume 59 Issue 3 1961 Attachment and Garnishment in the Federal Courts Brainerd Currie The University of Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, Courts Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Brainerd Currie, Attachment and Garnishment in the Federal Courts, 59 MICH. L. REV. 337 (1961). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol59/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW Vol 59 JANUARY 1961 No. 3 ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS Brainerd Currie* I. TllE PROBLEM AND ITS ORIGINS ERSONAL injuries allegedly caused by the negligent manufac­ P ture of safety fuses used in blasting operations in a coal mine were suffered by Raymond Davis, apparently a citizen of Arkansas. The manufacturer, Ensign-Bickford Company, was a Connecticut corporation that could not be personally served with process within Arkansas. But it happened that two foreign corporations, ame­ nable to process in the state, were indebted in substantial amounts to Ensign-Bickford Company. Accordingly, counsel for Davis, in­ voking the diversity jurisdiction, filed an action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Without issue of sum­ mons, the plaintiff, in conformity with Arkansas statutes, sued out orders of general attachment, for notice by publication, and for warning the defendant.
    [Show full text]
  • Whitewater Scandal Essential Question: What Was the Whitewater Scandal About? How Did It Change Arkansas? Guiding Question and Objectives
    Lesson Plan #4 Arkansas History Whitewater Scandal Essential Question: What was the Whitewater Scandal about? How did it change Arkansas? Guiding Question and Objectives: 1. Explain the impact of the Whitewater Scandal and how this effected the public and the people involved. 2. How do politicians and the politics make an impact on the world? 3. Is there an ethical way to deal with a scandal? NCSS strands I. Culture II. Time, Continuity, and Change III. People, Places, and Environments IV. Individual Development and Identity V. Individuals, Groups, and Institutions AR Curriculum Frameworks: PD.5.C.3 Evaluate various influences on political parties during the electoral process (e.g., interest groups, lobbyists, Political Action Committees [PACs], major events) Teacher Background information: The Whitewater controversy (also known as the Whitewater scandal, or simply Whitewater) began with an investigation into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and 1980s. — http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/ encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=4061 Materials needed: The Whitewater Scandal reading —see handout Assessment —see handout Opening activity: Ask what the Whitewater Scandal might be? Plot information on the board and guide the students into the direction of the Bill Clinton’s presidency. Activities: 7 minutes—Discuss and determine what the Whitewater Scandal might be. 25 minutes—Read the handout, take notes, and discuss materials while displaying the information opposed to strict lecturing. 30 minutes—Complete the assessment and have students share their findings. 28 minutes—Students will discuss their findings and discuss their impressions of the scandal.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Supreme Court Project Arkansas Supreme Court Historical Society Interview with Ray Thornton Little Rock, Arkansas September 20, 2011
    This oral history with former Justice Ray Thornton was conducted in two parts, on September 20, 2011, by Scott Lunsford of the David and Barbara Pryor Center for Oral and Visual History at the University of Arkansas and on February 21, 2013, by Ernest Dumas. The second interview goes into more detail on some aspects of his political career, particularly the Supreme Court. The Dumas interview follows the end of the Lunsford interview. Arkansas Supreme Court Project Arkansas Supreme Court Historical Society Interview with Ray Thornton Little Rock, Arkansas September 20, 2011 Interviewer: Scott Lunsford Scott Lunsford: Today’s date is September 20 and the year is 2011 and we’re in Little Rock at 1 Gay Place. I’m sorry, I don’t know the name of the person whose residence we are at, but we decided we wanted kind of a quiet, withdrawn place to do this interview and Julie Baldridge, your loyal helper… Ray Thornton: She and I have worked together for many years and she is really an extraordinary person. And on this day she has just been named the interim director of the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery Commission staff in Little Rock. SL: That’s a great honor. RT: Well, it is for her and she deserves it. SL: Well, we’re very grateful for her help in finding this place and getting us together. Let me say first that it is a great honor to be sitting across from you and I’ve looked forward to this for some time. Now, let me give you a brief description of what we’re doing here.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. In the Supreme Court of the United States LANELL WILLIAMS-YULEE, Petitioner, v. THE FLORIDA BAR, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ERNEST J. MYERS ANDREW J. PINCUS LEE W. MARCUS CHARLES A. ROTHFELD Marcus & Myers, P.A. MICHAEL B. KIMBERLY 1515 Park Center Drive Counsel of Record Suite 2G PAUL W. HUGHES Orlando, FL 32835 Mayer Brown LLP (407) 447-2550 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 EUGENE R. FIDELL (202) 263-3127 Yale Law School mkimberly@ Supreme Court Clinic mayerbrown.com 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 432-4992 Counsel for Petitioner QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a rule of judicial conduct that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally solicit- ing campaign funds violates the First Amendment. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Question Presented ..................................................... i Table of Authorities................................................... iii Opinions Below............................................................1 Jurisdiction..................................................................1 Constitutional Amendment and Canon of Conduct Involved.........................................1 Statement ....................................................................2 A. Factual background..........................................3 B. Procedural background ....................................3 Reasons for Granting the Petition..............................6 A. There is a deep and acknowledged conflict
    [Show full text]
  • GINAL Fsupr—Rne Cou
    Jle GINAL FSupr—rne CoU. U S emFILED No. LC) NOV1U21 OFFICE Of EID" Before The Supreme Court of The United States James E. Whitney Petitioner V. Cindy Glover, et al. Respondent On a petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Case no. 18-1227 Petition for Writ of Certiorari James E. Whitney,ProSe Sui Juris In Propria Persona 163817 P.O.Box 600 Grady, Arkansas 71644-0600 RECEIVED NOV 192018 OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT, U.S. Preface Pay heed and hear me, be still and I will speak; If you have what to say, answer me; But if not, listen to me; Be still and I will teach you wisdom. But where does wisdom come? Where is the source of understanding? See! Fear of the Lord is wisdom; to shun Evil is understanding; no man can set a value on the for it is the breath of El Shaddai from which they come. It is not the aged who are wise, nor the elders who understand how to judge. As long as there is life in me, and God's breath is in mynostrils, my lips will speak no wrong, nor my tongue utter deceit. Until I die I will maintain my integrity, I persist in my righteousness and I will not yield; I shall be free of reproach as long as I live. I would not temper my speech for anyone's sake nor show regards for any man, for I do not know how to temper my speech- my maker would soon carry me off.
    [Show full text]