DOCSLIB.ORG

Revised Model State Administrative Procedures Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revised Model State Administrative Procedures Act D R A F T FOR DISCUSSION ONLY | | REVISED MODEL STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS | October 2005 Meeting Draft April 15-17, 2005 WITH GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTS | Copyright ©20045 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS The ideas and conclusions set forth in this draft, including the proposed statutory language and any comments or reporter’s notes, have not been passed upon by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws or the Drafting Committee. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference and its Commissioners and the Drafting Committee and its Members and Reporters. Proposed statutory language may not be used to ascertain the intent or meaning of any promulgated final statutory proposal. | DRAFTING COMMITTEE ON REVISIONS TOTO REVISE MODEL STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT FRANCIS J. PAVETTI, 18 The Strand, Goshen Point, Waterford, CT 06385, Chair DUCHESS BARTMESS, 3408 Windsor Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 73122 JERRY L. BASSETT, Legislative Reference Service, 613 Alabama State House, 11 S. Union St., Montgomery, AL 36130, Enactment Plan Coordinator STEPHEN C. CAWOOD, 108 1/2 Kentucky Ave., P.O. Drawer 128, Pineville, KY 40977-0128 | VICCI COLGAN, Wyoming Attorney General, 123 Capitol Bldg., Cheyenne, WY 82001 | KENNETH D. DEAN, University of MissouriMissouri-Columbia School of Law, 337 | Hulston116 Jesse Hall, Columbia, MO 65211 BRIAN K. FLOWERS, Office of the General Counsel, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 4, Washington, DC 20004 H. LANE KNEEDLER, 901 E. Byrd Street, Suite 1700, Richmond, VA 23219 NATHANIEL STERLING, Law Revision Commission, 4000 Middlefield Rd., Suite D-1, Palo | Alto, CA 94303RAYMOND P. PEPE, 17 N. Second St., Payne Shoemaker Building, | 18th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 ROBERT J. TENNESSEN, 80 South 8th Street, 500 IDS Center, Minneapolis, MN 55402-3796 JOHN L. GEDID, Widener Law School, 3800 Vartan Way, P.O. Box 69382, Harrisburg, PA 17106-9382, National Conference Reporter EX OFFICIO FRED H. MILLER, University of Oklahoma, College of Law, 300 Timberdell Rd., Room 3056, Norman, OK 73019, President RAYMOND P. PEPE, 240 N. Third St., Payne Shoemaker Building, 13th Floor, Harrisburg, PA | 17101-1507,HOWARD J. SWIBEL, 120 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 1200, Chicago, IL | 60606, President | MICHAEL B. GETTY, 1560 Sandburg Terr., Suite 1104, Chicago, IL 60610, Division Chair | AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADVISOR MICHAEL R. ASIMOW, UCLA Law School, 405 N. Hilgard Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90095-9000, American Bar Association Advisor ROSE MARY BAILLY, 80 New Scotland Rd., Albany, NY 12208-3434, American Bar Association Section Advisor | EDWIN L. FELTER, JR., 1120 Lincoln633 17th St., Suite 14300, Denver, CO | 80203-214080202, American Bar Association Section Advisor | | EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WILLIAM H. HENNING, University of Alabama School of Law, Box 870382, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0382, Executive Director Copies of this Act may be obtained from: NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS 211 E. Ontario Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60611 312/915-0195 www.nccusl.org | REVISED MODEL STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT TABLE OF CONTENTS | GENERAL INTRODUCTIONGeneral Introduction . 1 | CORE ARTICLE I1 GENERAL PROVISIONS | § C1-101SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE..........................................24 | § C1-102SECTION 102. DEFINITIONS ..........................................24 | § C1-103SECTION 103. APPLICABILITY ......................................710 | § C1-104SECTION 104. SUSPENSION OF ACT’S[ACT]’S PROVISIONS WHEN | NECESSARY TO | AVOID LOSS OF FEDERAL FUNDS.....................................811 | SECTION 105. CONVERSION.................................................12 | CORE ARTICLE IIPUBLIC2 | PUBLIC ACCESS TO AGENCY LAW AND POLICY | § C2-10S1ECTION 201. ADMINISTRATIVE RULES PUBLISHER; PUBLICATION, | COMPILATION, INDEXING, AND PUBLIC INSPECTION OF RULES . 9 | 14 | § C2-102SECTION 202. REQUIRED AGENCY RULEMAKING AND RECORDKEEPING115 | § C2-103SECTION 203. DECLARATIONS BY AGENCY . 127 | CORE [SECTION 204. MODEL PROCEDURAL RULES . 18 | | ARTICLE IIIRULEMAKINGADOPTION3 | RULEMAKING | ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF RULES | § C3-101SECTION 301. CURRENT RULEMAKING DOCKET . 159 | § C3-102SECTION 302. AGENCY RULEMAKING RECORD . 15 | § C3-10320 | [SECTION 303. ADVICE ON POSSIBLE RULES BEFORE NOTICE OF PROPOSED | RULE ADOPTION] ....................................................23 | SECTION 304. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE ADOPTION . 1924 | § C3-104SECTION 305. REGULATORY ANALYSIS . 205 | § C3-105SECTION 306. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION . 216 | § C3-106SECTION 307. TIME AND MANNER OF ADOPTION . 227 | § C3-107SECTION 308. VARIANCE BETWEEN NOTICE OF RULE AND RULE | ADOPTED...........................................................238 | § C3-108SECTION 309. EMERGENCY RULES; NONCONTROVERSIAL RULES . 24 § C3-109. EXEMPTION FOR GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS . 26 | § C3-110FAST-TRACK RULES ................................................29 | SECTION 310. GUIDANCE RECORDS ..........................................31 | SECTION 311. CONTENTS OF RULE ..........................................33 | SECTION 312. CONCISE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT . 2833 | § C3-111[SECTION 313. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE] . 34 | SECTION 314. COMPLIANCE AND TIME LIMITATION . 2835 | § C3-112SECTION 315. FILING OF RULES ....................................2935 | § C3-113SECTION 316. EFFECTIVE DATE OF RULES . 306 § C3-114. SPECIAL PROVISION FOR CERTAIN CLASSES OF . 31 | § C3-115SECTION 317. PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF RULE . 327 | CORE ARTICLE IVADJUDICATION4 | ADJUDICATION | § C4-101SECTION 401. WHEN CHAPTER 4 OF THIS ACT APPLIES TO ADJUDICATIONS .....................................................33 § C4-102. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AGENCY ADJUDICATION– ADJUDICATION BILL OF RIGHTS .......................................34 | § C4-103ARTICLE 4 APPLIES .................................................38 | SECTION 402. MANDATORY PROCEDURE FOR DISPUTED CASES. 39 | SECTION 403. NOTICE OF HEARING ..........................................37 § C4-104. FORMAL ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE . 38 § C4-105. INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS .........................................41 | § C4-106. NO42 | SECTION 404. EVIDENTIARY HEARING PROCEDURE . 43 | SECTION 405. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS .................................42 § C4-107. LICENSES.........................................................44 § C4-108. INITIAL ORDER AND FINAL ORDER. 45 § C4-109. STAY .............................................................47 | § C4-11047 | SECTION 406. LICENSES ....................................................49 | SECTION 407. ORDERS: INITIAL AND FINAL. 50 | SECTION 408. STAY ........................................................52 | SECTION 409. AVAILABILITY OF DECISIONS AND OPINIONSORDERS; INDEX . 4752 | § C4-111SECTION 410. INFORMAL ADJUDICATION . 4853 | § C4-112SECTION 411. INFORMAL ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE. 49 § C4-113. CONVERSION .....................................................50 | CORE ARTICLE VJUDICIAL54 | SECTION 412. EMERGENCY ADJUDICATION. 55 | SECTION 413. INTERVENTION ...............................................57 | | ARTICLE 5 | JUDICIAL REVIEW § C5-101. RELATION TO OTHER APPEAL LAW AND RULES . 51 | § C5-102. FINALSECTION 501. RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, FINAL AGENCY | ACTION | REVIEWABLE ........................................................59 | SECTION 502. NON-FINAL AGENCY ACTION REVIEWABLE . 51 § C5-103. NON FINAL AGENCY ACTION REVIEWABLE . 51 § C5-104. FORM OF PETITION, JURISDICTION, VENUE . 52 | § C5-10560 | SECTION 503. RELATION TO OTHER APPEAL LAW AND RULES. 61 | SECTION 504. TIME FOR SEEKING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION, | LIMITATIONS ........................................................61 | SECTION 505. STAYS PENDING APPEAL ....................................5262 | § C5-106SECTION 506. STANDING ..........................................5363 | § C5-107SECTION 507. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES . 5464 | § C5-108SECTION 508. CLOSEDAGENCY RECORD ON JUDICIAL REVIEW; | EXCEPTION ........................................................5565 | § C5-109SECTION 509. SCOPE OF REVIEW...................................5666 | § C5-110SECTION 510. EFFECTIVE DATE ......................................58 § C5-111. SEVERABILITY ....................................................58 OPTIONAL PROVISIONS OPTIONAL ARTICLE IGENERAL PROVISIONS § O1-102. DEFINITIONS......................................................59 § O1-103. SUSPENSION OF ACT’S PROVISIONS WHEN NECESSARY TO AVOID LOSS OF FEDERAL FUNDS ..................................................61 OPTIONAL ARTICLE IIOPTIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS § O2-104. MODEL RULES ....................................................62 OPTIONAL ARTICLE IIIRULEMAKINGOPTIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS §O3-101. ADVICE ON POSSIBLE RULES BEFORE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE ADOPTION ...........................................................64 § O3-103. CONTENTS, STYLE, AND FORM OF RULE . 64 § O3-104. INVALIDITY OF RULES NOT ADOPTED ACCORDING TO CHAPTER . 66 § O3-113. SPECIAL PROVISION FOR CERTAIN CLASSES OF RULES . 66 OPTIONAL AGENCY REVIEW PROVISIONS § O3-105. RULE REVIEW BY AGENCY .........................................69 § O3-106. REVIEW BY GOVERNOR; ADMINISTRATIVE RULES COUNSEL . 70 § O3-107. ADMINISTRATIVE RULES REVIEW COMMITTEE . 70 § O3-108. REVIEW BY ADMINISTRATIVE RULES REVIEW COMMITTEE . 71 OPTIONAL ARTICLE IVADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDINGSOPTIONAL PROVISIONS ON AVAILABILITY § O4-101. ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDINGS;
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court
    Case 1:12-cv-00069-JB-KBM Document 135 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 106 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO JARITA MESA LIVESTOCK GRAZING ASSOCIATION; ALAMOSA LIVESTOCK GRAZING ASSOCIATION; SEBEDEO CHACON; THOMAS GRIEGO; DONALD GRIEGO; MICHAEL PENA; JUAN GIRON; JOE GURULE, JR.; FERNANDO GURULE; DIEGO JARAMILLO; LORENZO JARAMILLO; GABRIEL ALDAZ; ARTURO RODARTE; JEFFREY CHACON; GLORIA VALDEZ; JERRY VASQUEZ; CARLOS ORTEGA; LEON ORTEGA; HORACIO MARTINEZ; RONALD MARTINEZ; STEVE CHAVEZ; VANGIE CHAVEZ; ALFONSO CHACON; DANIEL RAEL; JOHN VALDEZ and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF RIO ARRIBA, Plaintiffs, vs. No. CIV 12-0069 JB/KBM UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE and DIANA TRUJILLO, in her official and individual capacities, Defendants. Case 1:12-cv-00069-JB-KBM Document 135 Filed 11/18/14 Page 2 of 106 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION1 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Federal Defendants‟ Motion to Dismiss Count 1 for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, filed February 18, 2013 (Doc. 55)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing on July 26, 2013. The primary issue is whether the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs‟ retaliation claim under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Because the Plaintiffs never argued their First Amendment retaliation claim before Defendant United States Forest Service in the administrative proceedings, because a claim is not exempt from the administrative-exhaustion requirement merely because it is constitutional in nature, and because the administrative-exhaustion requirement is mandatory and thus not subject to judicial waiver, the Court will dismiss without prejudice the First Amendment retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 7 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhaustion of State Remedies Before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: a Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 43 | Issue 1 Article 7 1963 Exhaustion of State Remedies before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: A Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section Merritt aJ mes University of Nebraska College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Merritt aJ mes, Exhaustion of State Remedies before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: A Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section, 43 Neb. L. Rev. 120 (1964) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol43/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. NEBRASKA LAW REVIEW VOL. 43, NO. 1 EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES BEFORE BRINGING FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS: A REAPPRAISAL OF U.S. CODE SECTION 2254 I. INTRODUCTION There are many instances in which a state's prisoner, after being denied his liberty for years, has subsequently, upon issuance of federal writ of habeas corpus, either been proven innocent or adjudged entitled to a new trial upon grounds that he was denied some constitutional right during the process of his state court trial.' In some of these cases it has been clear from the very beginning that if the allegations of the writ were proven, the de- tention was unconstitutional. Yet the prisoner is still forced to endure years of confinement while exhausting state remedies before 2 federal habeas corpus is available to him.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Access to Constitutional Justice
    Strasbourg, 27 January 2011 CDL-AD(2010)039rev. Study N° 538 / 2009 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) STUDY ON INDIVIDUAL ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 85th Plenary Session (Venice, 17-18 December 2010) on the basis of comments by Mr Gagik HARUTYUNYAN (Member, Armenia) Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute Member, Germany) Mr Peter PACZOLAY (Member, Hungary) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. http://www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2010)039 - 2 - Table of contents INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................6 GENERAL REMARKS....................................................................................................6 I. ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ...............................................................15 I.1. TYPES OF ACCESS .................................................................................................17 I.1.1. Indirect access...................................................................................................17 I.1.2. Direct access.....................................................................................................20 I.2. THE ACTS UNDER REVIEW ......................................................................................28 I.3. PROTECTED RIGHTS ..............................................................................................29 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER
    [Show full text]
  • Fail to Comment at Your Own Risk: Does Issue Exhaustion Have a Place in Judicial Review of Rules?
    Fail to Comment at Your Own Risk: Does Issue Exhaustion Have a Place in Judicial Review of Rules? Jeffrey S. Lubbers* The requirement that parties seeking judicial review of agency action first “exhaust” their administrative remedies initially developed as a prudential judicial construct1 and now is also sometimes reflected in statutes.2 The classic version of the exhaustion requirement generally requires a party to go through all the stages of an administrative adjudication before going to court. This ensures that the agency action being challenged is the final agency position and that the agency has had the opportunity to bring its expertise to bear and to correct any errors it may have made at an earlier stage. It also allows for the resolution of disputes before they come to court, thus avoiding potentially unnecessary additions to court dockets. I will refer to this as “remedy exhaustion.” The orthodox application of the remedy exhaustion requirement involves cases where the petitioner for judicial review has eschewed available administrative appeal opportunities. In some cases, a court’s refusal to accept review will simply clear the way for the further administrative proceedings to take place;3 but in other situations, the foreclosure of judicial relief occurs after “the opportunity to invoke the relevant administrative processes had passed.”4 * Professor of Practice in Administrative Law, Washington College of Law, American University; Research Director of the Administrative Conference of the United States (“ACUS”) from 1982–1995, Special Counsel to ACUS 2011– present, J.D., University of Chicago. I thank my research assistant Cooper Spinelli (Class of 2014) and ACUS staff (Stephanie Tatham, Connie Vogelmann, and Seth Nadler), for very helpful research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Study on Individual Access to Constitutional Justice
    Strasbourg, 8 December 2010 CDL(2010)134* Study N° 538 / 2009 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) DRAFT STUDY ON INDIVIDUAL ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE on the basis of comments by Mr Gaguik HARUTYUNYAN (Member, Armenia) Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute Member, Germany) Mr Peter PACZOLAY (Member, Hungary) *This document has been classified restricted on the date of issue. Unless the Venice Commission decides otherwise, it will be declassified a year after its issue according to the rules set up in Resolution CM/Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe documents. This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. http://www.venice.coe.int CDL(2010)134 - 2 - Table of contents INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................6 GENERAL REMARKS......................................................................................................6 I. ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ................................................................15 I.1. TYPES OF ACCESS...................................................................................................16 I.1.1. Indirect access ....................................................................................................16 I.1.2. Direct access.......................................................................................................20 I.2. THE ACTS UNDER REVIEW ........................................................................................27
    [Show full text]
  • Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:35:01 EST Client ID/Project Name: Number of Lines: 199 Job Number: 1861:196830226
    1225VR Time of Request: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:35:01 EST Client ID/Project Name: Number of Lines: 199 Job Number: 1861:196830226 Research Information Service: LEXSEE(R) Feature Print Request: Current Document: 1 Source: Get by LEXSEE(R) Search Terms: 285 ark. 397 Send to: MILLER, ROD ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT LIBRARY 625 MARSHALL ST LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201-1054 Page 1 LEXSEE 285 ARK. 397 REHAB HOSPITAL SERVICES CORP. v. DELTA-HILLS HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCY, INC.; and Frances FLENER, Individually and as Executive Director of Delta-Hills Health Systems Agency, Inc. No. 85-2 Supreme Court of Arkansas 285 Ark. 397; 687 S.W.2d 840; 1985 Ark. LEXIS 1928; 11 Media L. Rep. 1929 April 15, 1985, Opinion delivered PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from Jackson As such, the parties are required to exhaust administrative Circuit Court; Andrew G. Ponder, Judge. remedies prior to seeking a declaratory judgment. DISPOSITION: Affirmed. Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Reviewability > LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Exhaustion of Remedies Civil Procedure > Justiciability > Exhaustion of Remedies > Administrative Remedies Civil Procedure > Declaratory Judgment Actions > State Judgments > General Overview Administrative Law > Governmental Information > [HN3] The Supreme Court of Arkansas requires Freedom of Information > Enforcement > Reviewability exhaustion of administrative remedies before resorting to > Jurisdiction & Venue an action for declaratory judgment. Civil Procedure > Judgments > Relief From Judgment > Motions to Alter & Amend Governments > Courts > Rule Application & Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Reviewability > Interpretation Exhaustion of Remedies [HN1] Jurisdiction to interpret the Freedom of [HN4] A basic rule of administrative procedure requires Information Act is in the Supreme Court of Arkansas. that the agency be given the opportunity to address a Ark.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Court of Appeals of the State of Mississippi No. 2016
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2016-SA-00112-COA MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC APPELLANTS SAFETY AND ALBERT SANTA CRUZ, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. STACY SMITH, GREG NESTER, AND APPELLEES KRISTOPHER WINGERT DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/06/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WILLIAM A. GOWAN JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: PETER W. CLEVELAND WILSON DOUGLAS MINOR ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: DENNIS L. HORN SHIRLEY PAYNE NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: GRANTED THE APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 08/01/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: EN BANC. CARLTON, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Forensic scientists Stacy Smith, Greg Nester, and Kristopher Wingert (collectively, the Appellees), after proceeding through four levels of administrative review for grievances related to their transfer from the Mississippi Crime Laboratory (Crime Lab) to the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation (MBI) and the subsequent loss of their Crime Lab “position identification numbers” (PINs), filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on July 9, 2013, in the Hinds County Circuit Court, First Judicial District. The Mississippi Department of Public Safety (MDPS) failed to notify the Appellees, who were state civil-service employees, about the loss of their Crime Lab PINs until well after the event occurred. In their mandamus petition, the Appellees requested the following relief: (1) placement in the forensic[-]scientist step appropriate with their experience and performance, (2) all back pay due along with all fringe benefits, including contributions to the Mississippi State Retirement System [(PERS)], (3) on[-] call pay, (4) prospective placement in steps earned by experience, and (5) placement in supervisory positions if such become available.
    [Show full text]
  • RULES Supreme Court of the United States
    RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States ADOPTED APRIL 18, 2019 EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 First Street, N. E. Washington, DC 20543 Clerk of the Court ............................... (202) 479-3011 Reporter of Decisions.......................... (202) 479-3390 Marshal of the Court........................... (202) 479-3333 Librarian................................................ (202) 479-3175 Telephone Operator ............................. (202) 479-3000 Visit the U.S. Supreme Court Website http://www.supremecourt.gov Mailing Address of the Solicitor General of the United States (see Rule 29.4) Room 5616 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. THE COURT Page Rule 1. Clerk ................................................................................................ 1 Rule 2. Library ............................................................................................ 1 Rule 3. Term ................................................................................................ 1 Rule 4. Sessions and Quorum ................................................................... 2 PART II. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS Rule 5. Admission to the Bar.................................................................... 2 Rule 6. Argument Pro Hac Vice.............................................................. 3 Rule 7. Prohibition Against Practice ...................................................... 4 Rule 8. Disbarment and Disciplinary
    [Show full text]
  • Exhaustion of Remedies in a Private Hospital
    NOTES EIDELSON V RCHER EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES IN A PRIVATE HOSPITAL I. INTRODUCTION In Eidelson v. Archer,' the Alaska Supreme Court for the first time applied the exhaustion of remedies doctrine to a private hospi- tal proceeding. The unanimous court 2 did not decide whether the hospital was purely private or quasi-public. 3 It nevertheless held that before challenging the revocation of hospital staff privileges in the courts, a physician must exhaust the hospital's internal review procedures. In 1977, the executive committee of the privately owned Alaska Hospital and Medical Center summarily suspended Dr. Gary Archer's staff privileges while investigating allegations of his miscon- duct.4 Later, he was formally notified of his suspension, the reasons for it, and his right to a hearing under the hospital's bylaws.5 Instead of requesting such a hearing, Archer filed a motion in superior court against the hospital alleging wrongful removal, intentional interfer- ence with contract, and defamation. Before trial the complaint was amended to substitute for the initial charges a single charge of wrongful use of the hospital's bylaws.6 The jury returned a verdict Copyright © 1984 by Alaska Law Review 1. 645 P.2d 171 (Alaska 1982). On remand the case was dismissed and attor- ney's fees were awarded. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed this disposition of the case in an unpublished memorandum opinion. Archer v. Eidelson, No. 132 (Aug. 31, 1983) (disposition reported in ALASKA SUP. CT. MONTHLY ACTIVITY REP. (Aug. 1983)). 2. Justice Connor did not participate. 3. 645 P.2d at 175-76 n.13.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Issue Exhaustion Have a Place in Judicial Review of Rules?
    FAIL TO COMMENT AT YOUR OWN RISK: DOES ISSUE EXHAUSTION HAVE A PLACE IN JUDICIAL REVIEW OF RULES? JEFFREY S. LUBBERS∗ TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................... 110 I. Development of the Issue Exhaustion Doctrine: It Began with a Statutory Provision Applying to Agency Adjudications—L.A. Tucker Truck Lines ........................................................................................ 112 II. Application of Issue Exhaustion in a Ratemaking Case—Colorado Interstate ............................................................................................ 119 III. Rejection of Issue Exhaustion in a “Non-Adversary” Adjudication—Sims v. Apfel .............................................................. 120 IV. Exhaustion in Rulemaking .................................................................. 122 V. The Relevance of Darby v. Cisneros ......................................................... 124 VI. The Early Application of Issue Exhaustion in Rulemaking Cases by the D.C. Circuit .................................................................................... 126 VI. A Contemporaneous Development—Issue Exhaustion in NEPA Cases.. .................................................................................. 128 VII. General Issue Exhaustion Statutes and Judicially Developed Exceptions—the WATCH Case ...................................................... 131 VIII. The Increasing Application to Rulemaking Cases ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT of CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE SOULIOTES, ) 1:06-Cv-00667 AWI MJS HC ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER to 13 V
    Case 1:06-cv-00667-AWI-MJS Document 156 Filed 08/02/12 Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE SOULIOTES, ) 1:06-cv-00667 AWI MJS HC ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 13 v. ) SHOW CAUSE (Doc. 152) ) 14 ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden, ) ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO ) FILE AN ANSWER 15 Respondent. ) ) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 16 ________________________________) 17 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 The interplay of the doctrines of exhaustion of state remedies and procedural default 21 with respect to federal habeas corpus results in a paradox.1 By not exhausting state remedies, 22 a claim may nonetheless be considered exhausted by the failure to do so. As described 23 below, the Court discharges the order to show cause - not because Petitioner has properly 24 exhausted his claims in state court - but, by failing to present them in state court, and no 25 longer being able to return to do so, the claims are considered technically exhausted and are 26 27 1 In the words of Nobel Prize winning physicist Niels Bohr: “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.” 28 U.S. District Court E. D. California -1- Case 1:06-cv-00667-AWI-MJS Document 156 Filed 08/02/12 Page 2 of 11 1 instead subject to the requirements of procedural default. While the claims may still be barred 2 based on procedural default, the amended petition is not considered a mixed petition of 3 exhausted and unexhausted claims subject to dismissal.
    [Show full text]
  • Requiring Exhaustion: an International Law Perspective of the Alien Tort Claims Act in Sarei V
    Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 38 Article 5 Issue 3 Ninth Circuit Survey January 2008 Requiring Exhaustion: An International Law Perspective of the Alien Tort Claims Act in Sarei v. Rio Tinto Steffanie Bevington Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the International Trade Law Commons Recommended Citation Steffanie Bevington, Requiring Exhaustion: An International Law Perspective of the Alien Tort Claims Act in Sarei v. Rio Tinto, 38 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. (2008). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol38/iss3/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bevington: Exhaustion of Local Remedies NOTE REQUIRING EXHAUSTION: AN INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVE OF THE ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT IN SAREI V. RIO TINTO INTRODUCTION Surrounded by dense rain forest and tropical stillness lies one of the world's largest man-made holes in the ground. When the ore is completely extracted, the pit will measure nearly 8,000 feet across and around 1,200 feet deep. It would take two Golden Gate Bridges to span the hole, and if the Empire State Building were set at the bottom, only the antenna on top would rise above the rim of the mine.) The Panguna Mine, described above by environmentalist Jean Michael Cousteau as it appeared in 1988, is located in Papua New Guinea ("PNG,,).2 The mine was built in the village of Panguna on Bougainville, an island province of PNG, in the 1960s by Rio Tinto PLC ("Rio Tinto,,).3 The mine began operating in 1972.4 Within ten years of commencing operations, it was one of the largest copper mines in the I Sarei v.
    [Show full text]