DOCSLIB.ORG

CQ Presidential Support Scores

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CQ Presidential Support Scores 2014 Vote Studies Presidential Support Running on Empty Few bills, but many nominees, approved last year BY SHAWN ZELLER of the votes on which the president had a MIRROR IMAGES Nothing worked for Democrats in 2014. position, close to the record score of 96 per- President Barack Obama won on House In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of cent in 2013. But the Republican House was votes at the lowest rate in the 61 years Nevada tried to shield his caucus from tough setting records for its opposition to the presi- that CQ Roll Call has been tracking votes, limiting amendments and keeping the dent. Of 66 House votes on which Obama presidential votes. Because of a glut agenda focused on only the issues that Dem- had a view in 2014, only 10 went Obama’s of nomination votes, Obama’s Senate ocrats wanted to run on in November, such way, a 15.2 percent success rate that is the score was the second highest ever. as equal pay for women and an increased lowest in the 61 years that CQ Roll Call has minimum wage. It didn’t help. Endangered been tracking presidential success. The aver- Share of votes on which the Democrats in the South and West were ham- age Republican representative voted with president took a clear position: mered in the midterm elections for sticking Obama 12 percent of the time, matching the House Senate with Reid and President Barack Obama. record low that the party set in 2013. 11.7% 39.6% In the House, Republican Speaker John A. Because of the 60-vote threshold needed second-highest most Boehner of Ohio pushed through bill after to advance controversial legislation, Obama since since 1999 1968 bill designed to please the GOP’s base and also had a bad year in the Senate on policy pressure moderate Democrats to pick sides. votes. His 55 percent success rate on them 66 out of 562 145 out of 366 The bills aimed to scale back government was his lowest ever. Average for both chambers: 22.7% regulation, overturn the 2010 health care law But look at the Senate voting more broad- and overhaul the bureaucracy. While they ly and it tells a different story. When confir- died in the Senate, the GOP won its largest mation votes are added to the policy votes, How often the president won: House majority since the 71st Congress of Obama succeeded 93.1 percent of the time, House Senate 1929-31. the second-highest success score in the his- 93.1% For Obama, it meant that 2014 was a lost tory of CQ’s survey, trailing only Obama’s 15.2% second- year for policy. With the Senate and House 98.7 percent score in 2009, when he enjoyed lowest on record highest unable to agree on substantive issues beyond a huge Democratic congressional majority. on record funding the government and a new farm bill, This time, it was the result of Senate Demo- 10 out of 66 135 out of 145 Obama had little to sign and nothing to veto. crats’ 2013 decision to drop the threshold Gridlock on Capitol Hill was the dominant for approving most judicial and executive Average for both chambers: 68.7% theme, except in one respect: The Senate branch nominees from 60 votes to a simple voted to confirm a record number of judi- majority. cial and executive nominees because a rule Reid took up 125 nominees, the most Average chamber presidential support scores: change made it hard to filibuster. since CQ began tracking nomination votes When the government is divided, especial- in 1988. The Senate confirmed 124 of them, House Senate 100% 100% ly a government riven by polarized parties, it’s boosting senators’ presidential support 80 80 60 60 a recipe for gridlock, says Scot Schraufnagel, scores on both sides of the aisle. Republicans 40 40 a political scientist at Northern Illinois Uni- voted against Obama uniformly on the policy 20 20 0 0 versity. “It’s easier for the parties to pass the votes where the president had a view, but D 81% D 95% buck and say they’re not accountable for the there were only 20 of those. Because many of Fourth-highest on record Second-highest on lack of action.” the nominees were not controversial, the av- (Obama holds top six record (Obama holds scores) top six scores) In most ways, the votes that Congress erage Republican senator voted with Obama R 12% R 55% took in 2014 on the issues that Obama cared 55 percent of the time. That was the highest Ties last year's record low Second-highest support of a Democratic president about back up that point. The average Senate level of support from GOP senators since (to Clinton's 60% in 1997) Democrat voted with Obama on 95 percent Obama took office. CALL ROLL KELLY/CQ RYAN 26 CQ WEEKLY | MARCH 16, 2015 | www.cq.com Guide to The Vote Studies CQ Roll Call (previously Congressional Quarterly) has analyzed voting patterns of members of Congress since 1945. The three current studies — presidential support, party unity and voting participation — have been conducted in a consistent manner since 1953. This is how they are done: Selecting votes CQ Roll Call bases its vote studies on all floor votes for which senators and House members were asked to vote “yea” or “nay.” In 2014, there were 562 such roll call votes in the House and 366 in the Senate. The House total excludes the one quorum call in 2014 and one vote that was later vacated. The House total counts all votes on pro- cedural matters, including votes to ap- prove the journal (eight in 2014). In the DEADLOCKED: Boehner, center, moved many bills in the House that helped Republicans but were never Senate, there was one vote to instruct enacted. His predecessor as speaker, Nancy Pelosi, left, and Obama were left with little to show voters. the sergeant at arms to request senators to come to the floor. The presidential support and party unity LITTLE TO SHOW dent took a position in 2014. But, accord- studies are based on a set of votes se- Obama was surely happy to have his nom- ing to CQ’s statistics, Democrat Tim Kaine lected according to the criteria detailed inees in place, but that didn’t alter the reality of Virginia stuck just as close to Obama as on pages 31 and 41. that 2014 was one of the least productive Durbin did. And Kaine was a hair more loyal Individual scores Member scores are legislative years in modern times. to Obama than Democrats who might nor- based only on the votes each actually The consensus politics that existed in the mally seem fiercer partisans, such as Barbara cast. This makes individual support and United States when CQ began its vote studies Boxer of California or Charles E. Schumer opposition scores total 100 percent. The in 1953 is long over, as is the ideological over- of New York. same method is used to identify the lap between the parties. The final remnants In reality, every Democrat in the Senate leading scorers on pages 30 and 40. of it, the Southern Democrat and Northern was sharply partisan in 2014. The lowest Overall scores To be consistent with Republican, are, with each election cycle, scorer, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, previous years, calculations of average moving toward extinction. Without them, sided with Obama on 89 percent of votes. scores by chamber and party are based gridlock reigns, a function of polarization The differences between senators often came on all eligible votes, whether or not all and an American system of government that down to a vote on a single judge or executive members cast a “yea” or “nay.” The lack allows both parties to control levers of power branch appointment. of participation by lawmakers in a roll at the same time. It’s so hard to use the presidential support call vote reduces chamber and party The ideological sorting of the electorate by study to make meaningful distinctions be- average support and opposition scores. region, combined with political parties that tween Democratic senators in 2014 because As a result, chamber and party averages are now associated with clear positions on Reid allowed so few votes on policy issues are not strictly comparable with individ- the issues, has made it increasingly difficult or amendments. The policy votes were typi- ual member scores, which are calculated for mavericks to stand apart. cally on issues on which Democrats planned differently. (Methodology, 1987 Almanac, Consider the situation of Senate Demo- to run in 2014, such as ensuring equal pay p. 22-C) crats in 2014. Examining how often a senator for women or raising the minimum wage. Rounding Scores in the tables that follow supports the position of a president from the Without amendments to make distinctions for the House and Senate membership same party on the votes where the president on tricky issues, those were easy yes votes for are rounded to the nearest percentage has made his view known is usually a reli- Democrats. point. Rounding, however, does not raise able way to separate the moderates from the But Reid’s legislative strategy, in the end, any score to 100 percent, nor does it partisans. was a bust. The campaign turned not on reduce any score to zero. Scores for the But in 2014, that wasn’t so. A review of the issues that Democratic senators tried presidential and party support leaders the leading scorers for presidential support to frame with their few policy votes but on are reported to one decimal point in reveals some oddities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Christopher H
    Christopher H. Schroeder From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part III Prepared Testimony to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives June 26, 2008 2141 Rayburn House Office Building Christopher H. Schroeder From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part III Prepared Testimony to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives June 26, 2008 2141 Rayburn House Office Building Chairman Nadler, Ranking Minority Member Franks, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Christopher H. Schroeder, and I am currently a professor of law and public policy studies at Duke University, as well as of counsel with the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers. In the past, I have had the privilege to serve as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice, including a period of time in 1996-97 when I was the acting head of that office. Before that, I have also had the privilege of serving on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including as its Chief Counsel in 1992-93. As you know, the Office of Legal Counsel’s primary responsibility is to provide sound legal advice to other components of the Executive Branch, especially the President and the White House, so that the President can meet his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Magazine
    UCLA Volume 27 Q Fall 2004 LAW LAW Volume 27 27 Volume Q Fall 2004 Dean Michael H. Schill Building on a Tradition of Innovation UCLA LAW The Magazine of the School of Law contents 2 Dean’s Message 4 Dean’s Events 6 Go West, Young Man 10 History of UCLA School of Law: A Tradition of Innovation 18 UCLA Clinical Education: Bridging the Gap Between the Classroom and the Courtroom 24 UCLA School of Law Think Tanks: Providing Relevant Scholarship and Reliable Data for Real Issues 30 UCLA School of Law Emphasizes an Interdisciplinary Approach 34 UCLA Students Capitalize on Third Year Opportunities 40 After the JD: A Pathbreaking Study of the Lives of Young Lawyers 46 2004 Commencement 48 Faculty 49 Focus on Faculty 53 New Faculty 58 Recent Faculty Books 64 Faculty Honors 66 Tribute to Norm Abrams, Interim Dean 68 In Memoriam 70 Events 74 Students Moot Court Student Awards In Memoriam Law Fellows Public Interest 82 Development Major Gifts Law Annual Fund 87 Alumni Innovative Alumni Alumni Events Mentor Program Class Notes Planned Giving message from the dean s I assume the deanship of impact of living wage laws on employment and bankruptcy laws UCLA School of Law, I am on corporations. A tremendously excited Throughout this magazine, you will read of the myriad ways in about the prospects for this great insti- which UCLA has approached the study of law and the development of tution. Founded only fifty-five years its programs—both curricular and extra-curricular—with a truly ago, UCLA School of Law is the original mindset.
    [Show full text]
  • John Herrington Born in Chickasaw Nation, John Bennett Herrington Is a Retired United States Naval Aviator and Former NASA Astronaut
    John Herrington Born in Chickasaw Nation, John Bennett Herrington is a retired United States Naval Aviator and former NASA astronaut. In 2002, Herrington became the first enrolled member of the Native American tribe to fly in space. This was abord the Space Shuttle Endeavor’s STS-113 mission. Tom Bee and Douglas Spotted Eagle Following a three-year lobbying effort by Ellen Bello, founder of the Native American Music Awards and the Native American Music Association, the Grammy award was first presented to Tom Bee and Douglass Spotted Eagle in 2001 as the producers of the compilation album Gathering of Nations Pow Wow. In 2011, the category Best Native American Music Album was eliminated along with thirty others and replaced. Native American works will now be eligible for the Best Regional Roots Music Album category. Susan La Flesche Picotte Born on the Omaha reservation in northeastern Nebraska on June 17th, 1865, Susan La Flesche Picotte was a Native American doctor and reformer in the late 19th century. She is widely acknowledged as the first Native American to earn a medical degree. She campaigned for public health and for the formal, legal allotment of land to members of the Omaha tribe. Before becoming a place to honor and celebrate the life and word of Picotte, the Susan La Flesche Picotte Center was once a hospital named after her, then a center that cared for the elderly. She lived till 1915. Stanley Crooks From 1992 to 2012, Stanley Crooks served as the first chairman of Shakopee Mdewakanton, America’s richest Native American tribe near Minneapolis, MN.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 3:17-Cv-00597-GPC-AGS Case 3:17-Cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 126 Filed 03/20/20 Pageid.1853 Page 2 of 5
    Case 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS Document 126 Filed 03/20/20 PageID.1852 Page 1 of 5 1 BARON & BUDD, P.C. John P. Fiske (SBN 249256) 2 Jason Julius (SBN 249036) 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265, 3 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: 858-251-7424 Fax: 214-520-1181 4 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 5 Scott Summy (Pro Hac Vice Texas Bar No. 19507500) 6 Celeste Evangelisti (SBN 225232) Brett Land (Pro Hac Vice Texas Bar No. 24092664) 7 Zachary Sandman (Pro Hac Vice New York Bar No. 5418926) 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 8 Dallas, Texas 75219 Telephone: 214- 521-3605 Fax: 214-520-1181 9 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 10 Email: [email protected] 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 ADAM COX, individually, by and through Case No.: 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS his durable power of attorney, VICTOR 15 COX, and on behalf of himself and others NOTICE OF UNOPPOSED MOTION similarly situated; MARIA OVERTON, FOR ORDER (1) GRANTING 16 individually, and on behalf of herself and PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF others similarly situated; JORDAN CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, (2) 17 YATES, individually, and on behalf of CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT himself and others similarly situated; CLASS, (3) APPOINTING CLASS 18 REPRESENTATIVES AND CLASS Plaintiffs, COUNSEL, (4) APPROVING NOTICE 19 v. PLAN, AND (5) SETTING FINAL APPROVAL HEARING 20 AMETEK, INC., a Delaware corporation; THOMAS DEENEY, individually; NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS 21 SENIOR OPERATIONS LLC, a limited ORDERED BY THE COURT liability company; and DOES 1 through 22 100, inclusive, Hearing: June 8, 2020 at 11:15 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Settlement Agreement Is Entered Into by Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and 3 the Class Members, and Defendant Reckitt Benckiser, LLC
    Case 3:17-cv-03529-VC Document 221-2 Filed 05/12/21 Page 2 of 141 1 BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP TIMOTHY G. BLOOD (149343) 2 THOMAS J. O’REARDON II (247952) 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 3 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619/338-1100 4 619/338-1101 (fax) [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 Class Counsel 7 [Additional Counsel Appear on Signature Page] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 10 GORDON NOBORU YAMAGATA and Case No. 3:17-cv-03529-VC STAMATIS F. PELARDIS, individually and 11 on behalf of all others similarly situated, STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 12 Plaintiffs, LLP CLASS ACTION , 13 v. 14 RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, District Judge Vince Chhabria EARDON Courtroom 4, 17th Floor 15 Defendant. O’ R Complaint Filed: June 19, 2017 & 16 Trial Date: N/A URST 17 H 18 LOOD LOOD B 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 3:17-cv-03529-VC 00177902 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Case 3:17-cv-03529-VC Document 221-2 Filed 05/12/21 Page 3 of 141 1 TABLE OF EXHIBITS 2 Document Exhibit Number 3 Preliminary Approval Order ................................................................................................. 1 4 Final Approval Order ............................................................................................................ 2 5 Final Judgment ..................................................................................................................... 3 6 Class Notice Program ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona's Inspirational Women
    Arizona’s Inspirational Women Patch Program Guide ARIZONA’S INSPIRATIONAL WOMEN Patch Program Guide GREETINGS! The Arizona’s Inspirational Women Program is a collection of stories about women who have demonstrated a life-time of confidence, courage, and character and have made Arizona and our world a better place. By sharing these generational stories, we believe that current Girl Scouts will find hope and inspiration and learn about how they can also make our communities a better place. WHAT “INSPIRATIONAL” MEANS TO US » Lives by the Girl Scout Promise and Law » Is dedicated to a passion or a cause of choice » Stands up for what she believes in » Shows kindness and compassion towards other women and girls The activities included for the Arizona’s Inspirational Women Patch Program are structured around three components and are available for girls in all levels of Girl Scouts. You will work with your Troop Leaders to take-action through a hands-on activity that represents the inspirational woman’s life you are exploring. This program features numerous women that you can learn about--you may choose just one or as many as you’d like! By completing the activities for one or more of the women, you will earn the main patch, and the rocker with that woman’s name. Each year, a committee of volunteers will add worthy women to this patch program, so the list of women you can learn about will grow. Annually, GSACPC will host an event where we will announce the new women who have been added to the program that year.
    [Show full text]
  • Abundant Splits and Other Significant Bankruptcy Decisions
    Abundant Splits and Other Significant Bankruptcy Decisions 38th Annual Commercial Law & Bankruptcy Seminar McCall, Idaho Feb. 6, 2020; 2:30 P.M. Bill Rochelle • Editor-at-Large American Bankruptcy Institute [email protected] • 703. 894.5909 © 2020 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 600 • Alexandria, VA 22014 • www.abi.org American Bankruptcy Institute • 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 600 • Alexandria, VA 22314 1 www.abi.org Table of Contents Supreme Court ........................................................................................................................ 4 Decided Last Term ........................................................................................................................... 5 Nonjudicial Foreclosure Is Not Subject to the FDCPA, Supreme Court Rules ............................. 6 Licensee May Continue Using a Trademark after Rejection, Supreme Court Rules .................. 10 Court Rejects Strict Liability for Discharge Violations ............................................................... 15 Supreme Court Decision on Arbitration Has Ominous Implications for Bankruptcy ................. 20 Decided This Term ......................................................................................................................... 24 Supreme Court Rules that ‘Unreservedly’ Denying a Lift-Stay Motion Is Appealable .............. 25 Supreme Court Might Allow FDCPA Suits More than a Year After Occurrence ....................... 28 Cases Argued So Far This Term ..................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Third Circuit
    Full_Name City State Last_Name Next Clerkship Opening Accepting Applications Mail, Email or OSCAR? Post Grad Experience? Notes Thomas L. Ambro Wilmington DE Ambro 2021 posted on OSCAR online preferred Stephanos Bibas Philadelphia PA Bibas 2020 and 2021 posted on OSCAR online, email, do not send paper preferred Michael A. Chagares Newark NJ Chagares 2022 posted on OSCAR online, paper requires district court clerkship Robert E. Cowen Trenton NJ Cowen No longer hiring term clerks n/a n/a D. Michael Fisher Pittsburgh PA Fisher 2020 posted on OSCAR online May be reducing workload/going to 2021 but not accepting applications 3 clerks. Does not want paper Julio M. Fuentes Newark NJ Fuentes now no online prefers prior clerkship or work experience applications, will post on OSCAR Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. Newark NJ Greenaway 2020 yes paper requires one year post-grad work experience not hiring at this time, no other Morton I. Greenberg Trenton NJ Greenberg information no paper prefers prior clerkship Thomas M. Hardiman Pittsburgh PA Hardiman 2020 posted on OSCAR online Kent A. Jordan Wilmington DE Jordan 2021 yes paper Cheryl Ann Krause Philadelphia PA Krause 2021 posted on OSCAR online prefers prior clerkship Paul Matey Newark NJ Matey 2021 posted on OSCAR mail, email preferred Prefers candidates with a public interest background and work Theodore A. McKee Philadelphia PA McKee not accepting applications no paper experience Richard Lowell Nygaard Erie PA Nygaard No longer hiring term clerks n/a n/a David J. Porter Pittsburgh PA Porter 2020, 2021, 2022 posted on OSCAR online, paper, email May be reducing workload/going to Marjorie O.
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Departmentalism and Nonjudicial Interpretation: Who Determines Constitutional Meaning?
    08_JOHNSEN_FINALFMT.DOC 11/16/2004 12:21 PM FUNCTIONAL DEPARTMENTALISM AND NONJUDICIAL INTERPRETATION: WHO DETERMINES CONSTITUTIONAL MEANING? DAWN E. JOHNSEN* I INTRODUCTION One of the vibrant constitutional debates at the turn of the twenty-first cen- tury concerns enduring questions about the appropriate role of nonjudicial enti- ties—especially Congress and the President—in the development of constitu- tional meaning.1 The Supreme Court, of course, asserted its own authority to act on its interpretations of the Constitution two hundred years ago in Marbury v. Madison.2 Although academic debate over judicial review continues, the Court’s authority to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and the President today is integral to our constitutional system. Judicial review, though, is distinct from judicial supremacy. As growing numbers of commentators note, the Marbury Court claimed relatively limited interpretive authority for the courts: to interpret and apply the Constitution only in the course of resolving justiciable cases and controversies. The Court did not purport to resolve whether and when fidelity to the Constitution re- quires Congress and the President to adhere to the Court’s interpretations as they exercise their own constitutional powers. Congress and the President, too, are constitutionally obligated to uphold, and thus must first interpret, the Constitution. How should they approach this responsibility? Should they follow relevant Supreme Court precedent, even precedent with which they disagree, or may they take official action premised Copyright © 2004 by Dawn E. Johnsen This Article is also available at http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp. * Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Notices & the Courts
    PUBLIC NOTICES B1 DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 dailybusinessreview.com & THE COURTS MIAMI-DADE PUBLIC NOTICES BUSINESS LEADS THE COURTS WEB SEARCH FORECLOSURE NOTICES: Notices of Action, NEW CASES FILED: US District Court, circuit court, EMERGENCY JUDGES: Listing of emergency judges Search our extensive database of public notices for Notices of Sale, Tax Deeds B5 family civil and probate cases B2 on duty at night and on weekends in civil, probate, FREE. Search for past, present and future notices in criminal, juvenile circuit and county courts. Also duty Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach. SALES: Auto, warehouse items and other BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS (OCCUPATIONAL Magistrate and Federal Court Judges B14 properties for sale B6 LICENSES): Names, addresses, phone numbers Simply visit: and type of business of those who have received CALENDARS: Suspensions in Miami-Dade, Broward, https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/public-notices/ FICTITIOUS NAMES: Notices of intent business licenses B2 and Palm Beach. Confirmation of judges’ daily motion to register B10 calendars in Miami-Dade B14 To search foreclosure sales by sale date visit: MARRIAGE LICENSES: Name, date of birth FAMILY MATTERS: Marriage dissolutions, adoptions, https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/foreclosures/ and city of those issued marriage licenses B3 DIRECTORIES: Addresses, telephone numbers, and termination of parental rights B7 names, and contact information for circuit and CREDIT INFORMATION: Liens filed against PROBATE NOTICES: Notices to Creditors,
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit 4 Case 4:19-Cv-06864-HSG Document 45-4 Filed 10/08/20 Page 2 of 129
    Case 4:19-cv-06864-HSG Document 45-4 Filed 10/08/20 Page 1 of 129 Exhibit 4 Case 4:19-cv-06864-HSG Document 45-4 Filed 10/08/20 Page 2 of 129 AMENDED STIPULATION OF AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE This Amended Stipulation of Agreement and Settlement and Release is entered into by and among the Named Plaintiffs (as defined below), for themselves and on behalf of the Settlement Class, and Defendants Chime Financial, Inc. (“Chime”), The Bancorp Inc. (“Bancorp”), and Galileo Financial Technologies, LLC (formerly known as Galileo Financial Technologies, Inc. and referred to herein as “Galileo”) (collectively, “Defendants”), subject to preliminary and final Court approval as required by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As provided herein, Defendants and the Named Plaintiffs hereby stipulate and agree that, in consideration of the promises and covenants set forth in this Agreement and upon entry by the Court of a final order and judgment, all claims of the Settlement Class against the Defendants in connection with the Service Disruption (defined below) as alleged in the action titled Richards, et al. v. Chime Financial, Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-06864 (N.D. Cal.) shall be settled and compromised upon the terms and conditions contained herein. The Named Plaintiffs and Defendants are collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.” I. RECITALS A. Chime is the program manager for deposit accounts administered by Bancorp, for which Galileo acts as a processor (the “Accounts”). B. Some accountholders experienced an intermittent disruption in service for portions of the period of time between October 16, 2019 and October 19, 2019 (the “Service Disruption”).
    [Show full text]