FALL 2004 DEAN Alex M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Threats of Partisanship to Minnesota's Judicial Elections George W
William Mitchell Law Review Volume 34 | Issue 2 Article 9 2008 The Threats of Partisanship to Minnesota's Judicial Elections George W. Soule Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Soule, George W. (2008) "The Threats of Partisanship to Minnesota's Judicial Elections," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 34: Iss. 2, Article 9. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol34/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Soule: The Threats of Partisanship to Minnesota's Judicial Elections 8. SOULE - ADC.DOC 2/3/2008 3:54:10 PM THE THREATS OF PARTISANSHIP TO MINNESOTA’S JUDICIAL ELECTIONS George W. Soule† I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................702 II. THE FOUNDATION OF MINNESOTA’S JUDICIAL SELECTION SYSTEM ...................................................................................702 III. THE MODERN JUDICIAL SELECTION SYSTEM..........................704 A. Growth of the Minnesota Judiciary ..................................... 704 B. Minnesota Commission on Judicial Selection ...................... 705 C. Judicial Elections............................................................... 707 D. The Model of Non-Partisanship -
Application for the Position Member
Application for the position Member Part I: Position Sought Agency Name: Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board Position: Member Part II: Applicant Information Name: George William Soule Phone: (612) 251-5518 County: Hennepin Mn House District: 61B US House District: 5 Recommended by the Appointing Authority: True Part III: Appending Documentation Cover Letter and Resume Type File Type Cover Letter application/pdf Resume application/pdf Additional Documents (.doc, .docx, .pdf, .txt) Type File Name No additional documents found. Veteran: No Answer Part V: Signature Signature: George W. Soule Date: 2/15/2021 2:08:59 PM Page 1 of 1 February 2021 GEORGE W. SOULE Office Address: Home Address: Soule & Stull LLC 4241 E. Lake Harriet Pkwy. Eight West 43rd Street, Suite 200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409 Work: (612) 353-6491 Cell: (612) 251-5518 E-mail: [email protected] LEGAL EXPERIENCE SOULE & STULL LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota Founding Partner, Civil Trial Lawyer, 2014- BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota Founding Partner, Civil Trial Lawyer, 1985-2014 Managing Partner (Minneapolis office), 1996-1998, 2002-2004, 2007-10 TRIBAL COURT JUDGE White Earth Court of Appeals, 2012 - Prairie Island Indian Community Court of Appeals, 2016 - Fond du Lac Band Court of Appeals, 2017- Lower Sioux Indian Community, 2017 - GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT, Minneapolis, Minnesota Associate, Litigation Department, 1979-1985 Admitted to practice before Minnesota courts, 1979, Wisconsin courts, 1985, United States -
Assessing the Changing Nature of Authority in the Web Age: the Citation Practices of Minnesota Supreme Court
Assessing the Changing Nature of Authority in the Web Age: The Citation Practices of Minnesota Supreme Court Rebecca Sherman Submitted to Professor Penny A. Hazelton to fulfill course requirements for Current Issues in Law Librarianship, LIS 595, and to fulfill the graduation requirement of the Culminating Experience Project for MLIS University of Washington Information School Seattle, Washington May 13, 2013 I. INTRODUCTION It has been twenty years since researches gave up the right to patent the World Wide Web and made the source code publicly available.1 Since entering the public domain, the web has revolutionized the way people get information. Although electronic databases such as Westlaw and Lexis have been around since the 70s, they have been transformed to keep pace with developments on the web. Google searching has become so popular that electronic databases are now being redesigned to emulate Google.2 Consider the Google-like search boxes in WestlawNext and Lexis Advance. As a result of the web and increasingly sophisticated databases, attorneys today no longer need to sift through heaps of books at the library. They have virtual access to information anytime and anywhere. Law is a profession that is highly dependent on information. The medium through which information is conveyed undoubtedly has effects on the way the law is understood. Where legal information once existed in a self-contained domain, today it can be found online amidst a universe of information.3 This change of access has raised some concerns. Professor Ellie -
The Minimalist Architecture of the Minnesota Supreme Court1
William Mitchell Law Review Volume 37 | Issue 2 Article 10 2011 Rocks rather than Cathedrals: The inimM alist Architecture of the Minnesota Supreme Court Carol Weissenborn Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Weissenborn, Carol (2011) "Rocks rather than Cathedrals: The inimM alist Architecture of the Minnesota Supreme Court," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 37: Iss. 2, Article 10. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol37/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Weissenborn: Rocks rather than Cathedrals: The Minimalist Architecture of the ROCKS RATHER THAN CATHEDRALS: THE MINIMALIST ARCHITECTURE OF THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT1 Carol Weissenborn† I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 883 II. BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 884 A. A Voting Bloc .................................................................... 884 B. A Distinct Philosophy ........................................................ 886 III. STATE V. PECK: WORDS AS ROCKS ........................................... 891 IV. BRAYTON V. PAWLENTY: REORDERING THE ROCKS .................. 896 -
SUPREME COURT CALENDAR February 2021
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT CALENDAR February 2021 Please note the following time allotments for oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court: appellants are limited to 35 minutes and respondents are limited to 25 minutes. COURT CONVENES AT 9:00 A.M. (unless otherwise noted) Attorneys who will be arguing cases scheduled on this calendar should complete and return the argument appearance form attached at the end of this calendar. Attorneys in all cases scheduled for oral argument must check in with the Marshal in the courtroom to which the case is assigned (Capitol or Judicial Center), or virtual, if applicable, no later than 8:40 a.m. Counsel should be present and be prepared to begin whenever their case is called. Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea Justice G. Barry Anderson Justice Natalie E. Hudson Justice Margaret H. Chutich Justice Anne K. McKeig Justice Paul C. Thissen Justice Gordon L. Moore, III 2 En Banc Oral Case Number Date Location In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against A19-1461 2/03/21 Judicial Center, Barry L. Blomquist (Virtual) Roach, et al. v. Alinder, et al., Gary A19-2083 2/02/21 Judicial Center, Heitkamp Construction (Virtual) State v. Boss A19-1671 2/03/21 Judicial Center, (Virtual) State v. Friese A19-0451 2/01/21 Judicial Center, (Virtual) State v. Khalil A19-1281 2/04/21 Judicial Center, (Virtual) State v. McCoy A20-0485 2/02/21 Judicial Center, (Virtual) State v. Montano A20-0756 2/01/21 Judicial Center, (Virtual) 3 MINNESOTA JUDICIAL CENTER Monday, February 1, 2021 En Banc Oral State of Minnesota, Keith Ellison Respondent, Minnesota Attorney General Saint Paul, Minnesota Mark A. -
Spring 2010 U.S
IN THIS ISSUE SPRING 2010 School w ota La ota nes Min of y sit ver Uni the for e Magazin The Alumni fight for human rights on U.S. and global fronts. Former Justice O’Connor Visits • Justice Thomas Seminar • Legal Aid for Mille Lacs Band • Summer CLE Rights on Their Side S P R I N G 2 0 1 0 Perspectives FORMER JUSTICE O’CONNOR VISITS • JUSTICE THOMAS SEMINAR• LEGAL AID FOR MILLE LACS BAND www.law.umn.edu PAID U.S. Postage Permit No. 155 Nonprofit Org. Minneapolis, MN N225 Mondale Hall 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Partners in Excellence Annual Fund Update Dear Friends and Fellow Alumni: As National Co-Chairs of this year’s Partners in DEAN LAW ALUMNI BOARD AND Excellence annual fund drive, we are pleased that many David Wippman BOARD OF VISITORS 2009-10 of you have chosen to benefit the Law School with Grant Aldonas (’79) your generosity through gifts to the Law School Fund. ASSISTANT DEAN AND Deborah Amberg (’90)† In this time of varied economic challenges, you have CHIEF OF STAFF Austin Anderson (’58) recognized the importance of contributing to the Law Nora Klaphake Justice Paul Anderson (’68) School, particularly in light of rapidly dwindling state Former Chief Justice support. We thank all of you who have given so far DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS Russell Anderson (’68) and wish to specially acknowledge the generosity of Cynthia Huff Albert (Andy) Andrews (’66)† this year’s Fraser Scholars and Dean’s Circle donors James J. Bender (’81) (through April 15, 2010). -
Supreme Court
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT Produced by: Court Information Office 651-297-5532 [email protected] www.mncourts.gov December 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS The Minnesota Supreme Court ....................................................................................... 1 What the Supreme Court Does ....................................................................................... 1 An Overview of the Judicial System ................................................................................ 2 How A Case Gets to the Supreme Court and What Happens To It ................................ 4 History of the Supreme Court .......................................................................................... 5 The Minnesota Supreme Court Hears an Appeal ........................................................... 5 The Appeal ........................................................................................................... 5 Types of Appeals .................................................................................................. 6 The Appeals Route ............................................................................................... 6 Supreme Court Justices Take A Leadership Role .......................................................... 6 The Supreme Court Justices ........................................................................................... 7 Bringing A Case to the Supreme Court ........................................................................... 9 The Oral Hearing ................................................................................................. -
JUDICIAL B1v\!'I;CH
~1l:"i.".;"<;(lT..\ JUDICIAL B1v\!'I;CH 2005 Annual Report A Year of Change OUR MISSION To provide justice through a system that assures equal access for the fair and timely resolution of cases and controversies. OUR VISION The general public and those who use the court system will refer to it as accessible, fair, consistent, responsive, free of discrimination, independent, and well managed. OUR CORE VALUES • Judicial independence and accountability • Equal justice, fair and respectful treatment of all • Customer focused – internally and externally • Accessible • Affordable quality - commitment to excellence and a quality of work environment • Commitment to effective communication • Predictability of procedures • Balance between individualized justice and predictability of outcome • Efficient • Innovative and self-analytical OUR STRATEGIC PRIORITIES • Improving citizens’ access to justice • Reforming the children’s justice system • Using technology more effectively • Maintaining public trust and confidence CONTENTS A Message from Chief Justice Russell A. Anderson ..……………………………........ 2 A Tribute to Chief Justice Kathleen A. Blatz ……………………………………............ 3 Completing the Transition to a Fully State-Funded Court System......................... 4 The Judicial Council.………................................................................................. 5 Improving Efficiency And Effectiveness In Court Operations…………….............… 6 100th Anniversary of Minnesota’s Juvenile Court................................................ 7 Reforming -
Office Name Elected Officials in Ramsey County
Elected Officials in Ramsey County Term of Office Year of Next Office Name (Years) Election Federal President/ Vice President Donald Trump and Michael Pence 4 2020 US Senator Amy Klobuchar 6 2018 US Senator Al Franken 6 2020 US Congress- District 4 Betty McCollum 2 2018 US Congress- District 5 Keith Ellison 2 2018 State Senate- District 38 Roger Chamberlain 4 2020 Senate- District 41 Carolyn Laine 4 2020 Senate- District 42 Jason "Ike" Isaacson 4 2020 Senate- District 43 Charles "Chuck" Wiger 4 2020 Senate- District 53 Susan Kent 4 2020 Senate- District 64 Dick Cohen 4 2020 Senate- District 65 Sandy Pappas 4 2020 Senate- District 66 John Marty 4 2020 Senate- District 67 Foung Hawj 4 2020 Representative- District 38B Matt Dean 2 2018 Representative- District 41A Connie Bernardy 2 2018 Representative- District 41B Mary Kunesh-Podein 2 2018 Representative- District 42A Randy Jessup 2 2018 Representative- District 42B Jamie Becker-Finn 2 2018 Representative- District 43A Peter Fischer 2 2018 Representative- District 43B Leon Lillie 2 2018 Representative- District 53A JoAnn Ward 2 2018 Representative- District 64A Erin Murphy 2 2018 Representative- District 64B Dave Pinto 2 2018 Representative- District 65A Rena Moran 2 2018 Representative- District 65B Carlos Mariani 2 2018 Representative- District 66A Alice Hausman 2 2018 Representative- District 66B John Lesch 2 2018 Representative- District 67A Tim Mahoney 2 2018 Representative- District 67B Sheldon Johnson 2 2018 Governor / Lieutenant Governor Mark Dayton / Tina Smith 4 2018 Secretary of State Steve Simon 4 2018 State Auditor Rebecca Otto 4 2018 Attorney General Lori Swanson 4 2018 Judicial State Supreme Court- Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea 6 2018 State Supreme Court- Associate Justice Barry Anderson 6 2018 State Supreme Court- Associate Justice Margaret H. -
Supreme Court of the United States
No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BONN CLAYTON, Petitioner, v. HARRY NISKA, and OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Minnesota Court Of Appeals --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ERICK G. KAARDAL MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON, P.A. 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: 612-341-1074 Facsimile: 612-341-1076 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Petitioner ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED In Minnesota, citizens face civil prosecution for making false political statements. Under the existing Minnesota statutory scheme, prosecutions occur for indirect and implicit false claims of political support. Despite recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Minne- sota state courts continually uphold the constitution- ality of Minnesota’s statutory bans on false political speech. The question presented is: Whether a state statute banning false politi- cal speech is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest when such ban co- vers both implicit and indirect claims of po- litical support. ii -
Joint Degree Program Consortium on Law and Values
Annual Report 2004-2005 Joint Degree Program in Law, Health, & the Life Sciences™ Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment & the Life Sciences™ Highlights from 2004–2005: • 1st volume of Minnesota • 11 intramural Journal of Law, Science grants awarded & Technology published • New Associate Director • Success on NIH grant of Research & proposal on Education appointed research ethics • 24 JDP applicants • 2 new Consortium & 5 new JDP enrollees members • 1 new JDP graduate • Lecture Series on the • Publication from stem cell debate intellectual property • Lunch Series on medical symposium in MJLST devices & innovation • Publication from • Deinard Memorial conference on racial Lecture on genetics & ethnic categories in Nature Genetics • Conference on racial & ethnic categories • Publication from in biomedical research bioethics conference in Hastings Center Report • Open-submission symposium on the • New Visiting Consortium future of law & science Professorship • Cosponsorship of bioethics conference 2004–2005 Events Tuesday, November 2, 2004 Tuesday, April 5, 2005 Lunch Series on the Societal Implications Lunch Series on the Societal Implications of the Life Sciences of the Life Sciences Prof. Michael Lysaght, Brown University Alan Milstein, Esq., Sherman, Silverstein, “Risk, Reason & Regulation of Medical Kohl, Rose & Podolsky Devices” “Human Subjects Protection: A Plaintiff’s Perspective” Wednesday, December 8, 2004 Lecture Series on Law, Health Monday, April 18, 2005 & the Life Sciences Annual Conference Prof. Evan Snyder, Burnham Institute “Proposals for the Responsible Use of and University of California, San Diego Racial & Ethnic Categories in Biomedical “Stem Cell Biology: Good Ethics Depend Research: Where Do We Go From Here?” on Good Facts” Commentators: Profs. Paul Tuite, Jeffrey Kahn, Wednesday, April 20, 2005 University of Minnesota Lecture Series on Law, Health & the Life Sciences Wednesday, February 2, 2005 Prof. -
University of Florida • Spessard L. Holland Law Center P.O
BARBARA J. EVANS University of Florida • Spessard L. Holland Law Center P.O. Box 117620 • Gainesville, FL 32611-7620 (352) 273-0915 (office) • (713) 446-7576 (cell) [email protected] or [email protected] LEGAL EDUCATION J.D., Yale Law School, 1994 LL.M. Health Law, University of Houston, 2003 Admitted to practice: New York (since 1996), Texas (since 2000) OTHER EDUCATION Post-doctoral Fellow, Clinical Ethics, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 2003 – 2004 Ph.D., Earth Sciences, Stanford University, 1984 M.S., Applied Earth Sciences, Stanford University, 1982 B.S., Electrical Engineering, with Honors, University of Texas at Austin, 1979 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT University of Florida, Gainesville, FL (2020 – present). Professor of Law and Stephen C. O’Connell Chair, Fredric G. Levin College of Law; Professor of Engineering, Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering. Classes Taught. Torts, Biotechnology & Medical AI, Health Law Survey Research interests. Legal and ethical issues with artificial intelligence/machine learning clinical decision support and diagnostic support software. Data privacy. Financing, governance, and access to data for large-scale medical data commons and the rights of people whose data are held in medical and genomic databases. Regulatory issues with novel gene-editing technologies and genomic and other diagnostic tests. Food & Drug Administration regulatory matters, especially for medical devices. Health care law. Publications. See pages 9 – 19 PRIOR EMPLOYMENT 2007 – 2020 University of Houston, Houston, TX University of Houston Law Center (2007-2020), Mary Ann and Lawrence E. Faust Professor of Law (2018-2020) and Director, Center for Biotechnology & Law (2007-2020), University of Houston Cullen College of Engineering (2017-2020), Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering (2017-2020).