DOCSLIB.ORG

CERTIFICATE of GOOD STANDING CONTACT LIST Current As of April 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING CONTACT LIST Current as of April 2021 Applicants MUST contact each office directly to determine whether this information has changed. You must provide original Certificates of Good Standing from the clerk of the highest court (Supreme Court) of the state of country having authority over admission to practice law in all jurisdictions that you are admitted, including all Federal and District Courts. ALABAMA CONNECTICUT GUAM Illinois Attorney Registration & Supreme Court of Alabama Clerk of the Superior Court Supreme Court of Guam Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) Supreme Court Clerk Hartford Judicial District 95 Board of Law Examiners ARDC Attention: Registration COGS Request Washington Street Suite 300, Guam Judicial Center Department 300 Dexter Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 120 W. O'Brien Drive 130 East Randolph Drive, Suite Montgomery, AL 36104 (860) 548-2700 Hagåtña, GU 96910 1500 (334) 229-0700 (860) 548-2711 Fax (671) 475-3180 Chicago, IL 60601 Fee: $15 Fee: $10 - CC or MO payable to Fee - $25, (+ $5.00 for additional (312) 565-2600 http://judicial.alabama.gov/appellate Clerk of Superior Court copies) payable to Supreme Court (312) 565-0997- Fax- Attn: /cogs https://www.jud.ct.gov/sgc/faq_cert of Guam Registration Dept. goodstand.htm http://www.guamcourts.org/board-of- Hours: 9 am to 5 pm, M-F ALASKA law- https://registration.iardc.org/attyreg/Regi Clerk of Appellate Courts DELAWARE examiners/images/certificate_of_good_st stration/Registration_Department/Letter_ anding.pdf 303 K Street Supreme Court 55 of_Good_Standing/Registration/regdept/l ettersofgoodstanding.aspx?hkey=3520a6 Anchorage, AK 99501 The Green HAWAII d4-9bf5-4aea-841f-884ed107ec34 (907) 264-0612 Dover, DE 19901 Supreme Court of Hawaii https://registration.iardc.org/attyreg/Regi Fee: no charge, written request for (302) 739-4155 Office of the Chief Clerk stration/Registration_Department/Letter_ Supreme Court issued certificate Fee: $10, request by phone or in of_Good_Standing/Registration/regdept/l 417 S King St https://alaskabar.org/for- writing ettersofgoodstanding Rm 103 lawyers/certificates-of-good- Email: [email protected] Honolulu, HI 96813 standing/ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Fillable pdf: .pdf Letter of Good (808) 539-4919 Clerk - DC Court of Appeals Standing Request Form Fee: $5.00 payable to Court of the ARIZONA Committee on Admissions/CGS Supreme Court, written request or Supreme Court of Arizona 430 E. Street NW INDIANA by phone, check or Money order, Certification and Licensing Room 123 Clerk of the Supreme Court Office include a SASE Division Washington, DC 20001 Roll of Attorneys Administrator http://oaoa.hawaii.gov/jud/pdf/conta 1501 West Washington, (202) 879-2710 402 West Washington Street ct_certificate_good_standing.pdf Suite 104 Fee: $5 CC or MO payable to Clerk, Room W062 Phoenix, AZ 85007-3231 DC Court of Appeals Indianapolis, IN 46204 IDAHO (602) 452-3378 (317) 232-5861, ext. 4 Idaho Supreme Court Clerk’s Office Fee: $17, made payable to Clerk of FLORIDA Fee: $2, payable to the Clerk of P.O. Box 83720 the Supreme Court Florida Supreme Court Courts w/ SASE call or send a Boise, ID 83720-0101 https://www.azcourts.gov/attorneydi Attention: Clerk’s Office written request (208) 334-2210 scipline/CertificatesofGoodStanding 500 S. Duval Street https://courts- Fee: $10, written request include .aspx Tallahassee, FL 32399-1927 ingov.zendesk.com/hc/en- SASE Or by email: (850) 488-0125 us/articles/115005248968-How-do- supremecourtdocuments@idcourts. ARKANSAS Fee: $7, made payable to “Clerk, I-obtain-an-attorney-Certificate-of- net Supreme Court – Clerk of Courts Florida Supreme Court” include a Good-Standing- Online Info: Justice Building SASE https://isc.idaho.gov/files/Certificate 625 Marshall Street https://www.floridasupremecourt.or IOWA s_of_Good_Standing.pdf Little Rock, AR 72201 g/Help-FAQs/Clerk-s-Office-FAQs Clerk of Supreme Court (501) 682-6849 1111 E. Court Avenue ILLINOIS Fee: no charge, request by phone or Des Moines, IA 50319 GEORGIA Clerk of Supreme Court Building in writing (515) 348-4700, Ext. 3 Supreme Court of Georgia 244 200 E. Capitol Ave. Fee: $10, payable to Clerk of Washington Street, SW Springfield, IL 62701-1721 CALIFORNIA Supreme Court or online at: Rm. 572 (217) 782-2035 California Supreme Court https://www.iowacourts.gov/opr/att Atlanta, GA 30334 Fee: $15 (+$5 add’l copies), send 350 Mc Allister Street orneys/admissions/certificate-of- (404) 656-3470 written request San Francisco, CA 94102 good-standing/ (404) 656-2253 Fax http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/supre (415) 865-7000 Fee: $10 mecou rt/goodstanding.asp Fee: $1, payable to Clerk of KANSAS Written request include SASE Supreme Court, send a written Attorney Registration https://www.gasupreme.us/court- request include SASE Kansas Judicial Center %20information/purchase/ 301 SW 10th Avenue COLORADO Room 117 Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center Topeka, KS 66612-1507 Colorado Supreme Court (785) 296-8409 Office of Attorney Registration Fee: no charge, make request by 1300 Broadway, Suite 510 phone or email: Denver, CO 80203 [email protected] (303) 928-7800 https://www.kscourts.org/appellate- Fee: $10, CC or MO payable to clerk/attorney- Clerk of Supreme Court, registration/default.asp send written request include SASE. http://coloradosupremecourt.com/C urrent%20Lawyers/DocumentRequ ests.asp 1 KENTUCKY MINNESOTA NEW HAMPSHIRE NY Appellate Division Kentucky Bar Association Lawyer Registration Office New Hampshire Supreme Court 3rd Judicial Department Accounting/Membership Dept. 180 E. 5th St., Suite 950 One Charles Doe Drive Attorney Admissions 514 W. Main St. Paul MN 55101 Concord, NH 03301 Empire State Plaza Frankfort, KY 40601-1883 (651) 296-2254 (603) 271-2646 Robert Abrams Building for Law (502) 564-3795 Fee: $50, request in writing, Checks Fee: $10, Check should be made and Justice State Street Email: [email protected] should be made payable to the payable to State of New Hampshire Room 511 Fee: $25, request by phone or in Minnesota Supreme Court or order Website Info: Albany, NY 12223 writing, include reason need cert online pdf request form at: https://www.courts.state.nh.us/lawy (518) 471-4778 https://www.kyoba.org/ https://www.lro.mn.gov/wp- ers/certificate-in-good-standing.htm (518) 471-4749 Fax content/uploads/2018/10/Certificate Fee: $10, written request include LOUISIANA -of-Good-Standing-Order-Fillable- SASE NEW JERSEY Louisiana Supreme Court PDF.pdf Online: New Jersey Board of 400 Royal Street https://www.nycourts.gov/ad3/Adm Bar Examiners New Orleans, LA 70130 MISSISSIPPI issions/Forms/Certificate%20of%20 P.O. Box 973 (504) 310-2315 Mississippi Supreme Court Good%20Standing%20- Trenton, NJ 08625 Fee: $20, request by phone Office of the Clerk %20Instructions%20and%20Form.p (609) 815-2911 Online Request: 450 High Street df Fee: $20, Check or MO made https://cogs.lasc.org/ Jackson, MS 39201 payable to Secretary, New Jersey (601) 359-3694 NY Appellate Dept. Board of Bar Examiners. PDF MAINE (601) 359-5068 Fax 4th Judicial District Request form at: The Maine Board of Fee: $10, by written request to the Admissions Office https://www.njbarexams.org/certific Overseers of the Bar Clerk’s Office M. Dolores Denman Courthouse ate-of-good-standing-form PO Box 527 50 East Avenue Augusta ME 04332 MISSOURI Suite 200 (207) 623-1121 Office of the Clerk of the NEW MEXICO Rochester, NY 14604 Fee: $25, CC or MO by phone or by Supreme Court New Mexico Supreme Court (585) 530-3131 written request include SASE Attn: Certificates P.O. Box 848 Fee: No charge, request by phone https://www.mebaroverseers.org P.O. Box 150 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848 Online: Email: [email protected] Jefferson City, MO 65102 (505) 827-4860 https://ad4.nycourts.gov/forms/certi Online Order: (573) 751-4144 Fee: $1, request by phone or in ficate-of-good-standing.asp https://secure.affinipay.com/pages/ E-mail: [email protected] writing or Online: meoverseers/gscertificate Fee: $5, send a written request https://supremecourt.nmcourts.gov/ NORTH CAROLINA https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp certificates-of-good-standing.aspx Supreme Court Clerk’s Office MARYLAND ?id=2041 Attn: Ashley Joyner, Deputy Clerk Clerk Court of Appeals Maryland NEW YORK P.O. Box 2170 361 Rowe Boulevard MONTANA Supreme Court Attorney Records Raleigh, NC 27602 Annapolis, MD 21401 Clerk of the Supreme Court Clerk (919) 831-5700 (410) 260-1500 Room 323; Justice Building Appellate Department 1st Fee: $5, payable to Supreme Court Fee: $7, CC or MO payable to 215 No. Sanders Judicial Department of North Carolina Clerk, Court of Appeals, pdf request PO Box 203003 27 Madison Avenue Online: form at: Helena, MT 59620-3003 New York, NY 10010 https://www.nccourts.gov/courts/su https://www.courts.state.md.us/sites (406) 444-3858 212-340-0400 preme-court/certificate-of-good- /default/files/import/coappeals/cogs. (406)444-5705 212-295-4915 standing pdf Fee: $5, send a written request Fee: $10, payable to Clerk Appellate Division NORTH DAKOTA MASSACHUSETTS NEBRASKA Online: State Board of Law Examiners Clerk Maura S. Doyle Clerk of Supreme Court https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad 600 E. Boulevard Avenue Supreme Judicial Court Room 2413, State Capitol 1/Committees&Programs/CFC/201 Dept. 180 for Suffolk County P.O. Box 98910 8%20CGS%20Form.pdf Bismark, ND 58505-0530 John Adams Courthouse, 1st Floor Lincoln, NE 68509 (701) 328-4201 One Pemberton Square – Suite 1300 (402) 471-3731 NY Appellate Division (701) 328-4480 Fax Boston, MA 02108-1707 (402) 471-3480 Fax 2nd Judicial Department Fee: no charge (617) 557-1050 Fee: $5, Request by phone General Clerk’s Office email: Fee: $15, made payable to Info: 45 Monroe Place [email protected] Commonwealth of Massachusetts https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/a Brooklyn, NY 11201 https://www.mass.gov/files/docume ttorneys (718) 875-1300 NORTHERN MARIANA nts/2016/12/oy/application-for- Fee: $10, payable to Clerk 2nd ISLANDS certificate-of-good- NEVADA Appellate Division, SASE Commonwealth Supreme Court standing.pdf?_ga=2.36228192.1581 The State Bar of Nevada Online: Northern Mariana Islands 287123.1554918471- 3100 W.
Recommended publications
  • GUAM RULES of APPELLATE PROCEDURE (As of February 24, 2014)

    GUAM RULES of APPELLATE PROCEDURE (As of February 24, 2014)

    SUPREME COURT OF GUAM 1 GUAM RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE (as of February 24, 2014) 1 Adopted by the Supreme Court of Guam pursuant to Promulgation Order No. 07-003-01 (Feb. 21, 2007). Amended pursuant to Promulgation Order No. 07-003-06 (Feb. 24, 2014). Please see “SOURCE” to each rule for any amendment that may have occurred to said rule. COL2242014 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPLICABILITY OF RULES Page Rule 1 -- Effective Date of Rules, Scope and Practice. 1 Rule 2 -- Suspension of Rules. 1 APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Rule 3 -- Appeals, Notice. 1 (a) Filing the Notice of Appeal. (b) Joint or Consolidated Appeals. (c) Content of the Notice of Appeal. (d) Criminal Appeals. (e) Denomination of Parties. (1) Appeals. (2) Cross-Appeals. (3) Privacy and Confidentiality. (f) Service of the Notice of Appeal. Rule 4 -- Appeals, Timing . 4 (a) Appeal in a Civil Case. (1) Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal. (2) Filing before Entry of Judgment. (3) Multiple Appeals. (4) Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeal. (5) Motion for Extension of Time. (6) Reopening the Time to File an Appeal. (7) Entry Defined. (b) Appeal in a Criminal Case. (1) Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal. (2) Filing before Entry of Judgment. (3) Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeal. (4) Motion for Extension of Time. (5) Jurisdiction. (6) Entry Defined. (c) Appeal by an Inmate Confined in an Institution. (d) Mistaken Filing in the Court of Appeals. Rule 4.1 -- Statement of Jurisdiction.
  • 50 State Survey(Longdoc)

    50 State Survey(Longdoc)

    AGREEMENTS TO INDEMNIFY & GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: A Fifty State Survey WEINBERG WHEELER H U D G I N S G U N N & D I A L TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Alabama 4 Alaska 7 Arizona 12 Arkansas 15 California 19 Damages arising out of bodily injury or death to persons. 22 Damage to property. 22 Any other damage or expense arising under either (a) or (b). 22 Colorado 23 Connecticut 26 Delaware 29 Florida 32 Georgia 36 Hawaii 42 Idaho 45 Illinois 47 Indiana 52 Iowa 59 Kansas 65 Kentucky 68 Louisiana 69 Maine 72 Maryland 77 Massachusetts 81 Michigan 89 Minnesota 91 Mississippi 94 Missouri 97 Montana 100 Nebraska 104 Nevada 107 New Hampshire 109 New Jersey 111 New Mexico 115 New York 118 North Carolina 122 North Dakota 124 Ohio 126 Oklahoma 130 Oregon 132 Pennsylvania 139 Rhode Island 143 South Carolina 146 South Dakota 150 Tennessee 153 Texas 157 Utah 161 Vermont 165 Virginia 168 Washington 171 West Virginia 175 Wisconsin 177 Wyoming 180 INTRODUCTION Indemnity is compensation given to make another whole from a loss already sustained. It generally contemplates reimbursement by one person or entity of the entire amount of the loss or damage sustained by another. Indemnity takes two forms – common law and contractual. While this survey is limited to contractual indemnity, it is important to note that many states have looked to the law relating to common law indemnity in developing that state’s jurisprudence respecting contractual indemnity. Common law indemnity is the shifting of responsibility for damage or injury from one tortfeasor to another
  • INSURANCE COVERAGE Alert!

    INSURANCE COVERAGE Alert!

    INSURANCE COVERAGE Alert! News Concerning Recent Insurance Coverage Issues January 29, 2008 www.cozen.com OREGON SUPREME COURT RULES TORT REFORM PRINCIPAL OFFICE: CAP AS APPLIED TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PHILADELPHIA NEW YORK MIDTOWN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL (215) 665-2000 (212) 509-9400 (800) 523-2900 (800) 437-7040 ATLANTA NEWARK By: William F. Knowles and Joshua M. Rosen (404) 572-2000 (973) 286-1200 [email protected] & [email protected] (800) 890-1393 (888) 200-9521 CHARLOTTE SANTA FE (704) 376-3400 (505) 820-3346 The Oregon Supreme Court recently held that a plaintiff could pursue liability claims (800) 762-3575 (866) 231-0144 against individual public employees of public entities. The Court further stated that the damages cap in the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA) violated the Remedy Clause CHERRY HILL SAN DIEGO (856) 910-5000 (619) 234-1700 of the Oregon Constitution. Jordaan Michael Clarke v. Oregon Health Sciences (800) 989-0499 (800) 782-3366 University, No. SC S053868, (Ore. Sup., December 28, 2007). CHICAGO SAN FRANCISCO (312) 382-3100 (415) 617-6100 In February 1998, Jordaan Michael Clarke (Clarke) was born at Oregon Health & (877) 992-6036 (800) 818-0165 Science University (OHSU) with a congenital heart defect. In May 1998, Clarke returned to OHSU for surgical repair of his heart defect. After a successful surgery, DALLAS SEATTLE (214) 462-3000 (206) 340-1000 Clarke was placed in a surgical intensive care unit, where he suffered permanent brain (800) 448-1207 (800) 423-1950 damage from oxygen deprivation. DENVER TORONTO (720) 479-3900 (416) 361-3200 In 2001, Clarke sued OHSU and the medical staff personnel who treated Clarke for (877) 467-0305 (888) 727-9948 more than $17 million to pay for his lifetime care, loss and future wages and non-economic damages.
  • Supreme Court

    Supreme Court

    SUPREME COURT Media Release COPIES: Contact: Copies of the slip opinions may be obtained from the Appellate Records Section, (503) 986-5555 Stephen P. Armitage The full text of these opinions can be found at www.courts.oregon.gov/publications Staff Attorney (503) 986-7023 Case decided August 6, 2020. Jennifer James, et al. v. State of Oregon, et al., (SC S066933) On petition for review under Oregon Laws 2019, chapter 355, section 65. Petitioners' requests for relief challenging Oregon Laws 2019, chapter 355, sections 1-19 and 39-40, are denied. Today, the Oregon Supreme Court denied claims brought by petitioners challenging two amendments to the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) enacted by the legislature in SB 1049 (Oregon Laws 2019, chapter 355). The first challenged amendment redirects a member's PERS contributions from the member's individual account program -- the defined-contribution component of the member's retirement plan - - to a newly created employee pension stability account, used to help fund the defined- benefit component of the member's retirement plan. The second challenged amendment imposes a cap on the salary used to calculate a member's benefits. Petitioners primarily argued that the redirection and salary-cap provisions in SB 1049 unconstitutionally impaired their employment contracts in violation of the state Contract Clause, Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution. In the alternative, petitioners argued that the amendments violated the federal Contract Clause, Article I, section 10, clause 1, of the United States Constitution, breached their contracts, and constituted an unconstitutional taking of their property without just compensation in violation of Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
  • The Judiciary of Guam Fiscal Year 2017 a Citizen - Centric Report Website

    The Judiciary of Guam Fiscal Year 2017 a Citizen - Centric Report Website

    The Judiciary of Guam Fiscal Year 2017 A Citizen - Centric Report Website: www.guamcourts.org TABLE OF CONTENTS About Us 1 Our Performance 2 Vision Our Finances 3 e Judiciary will Our Outlook 4 provide the highest quality of judicial services, thus enhanc- ing public trust and condence in Guam’s Mission independent and e Judiciary administers justice by co-equal branch of interpreting and upholding the government and laws, resolving disputes in a timely becoming the model manner and providing accessible, of governmental ecient and eective court excellence. services. The Supreme Court of Guam (L-R) Justice F. Phillip Carbullido, Chief Justice Katherine A. Maraman and Justice Robert J. Torres. About Us e Judiciary of Guam is the third branch of the Government of Guam that is charged with interpreting the laws of the U.S. Territory of Guam. e Judiciary is comprised of the Superior Court of Guam and the Supreme Court of Guam of which both the trial and appellate courts provide for the selement of disputes between parties and protects the rights of individuals as mandated in the Organic Act of Guam and the Constitution of the United States of America. e Judicial Council of Guam is the governing body of the Judiciary of Guam. Pursuant to law, it is composed of all full-time Justices of the Supreme Court, the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, and an appointed Superior Court Judge. e current compo- sition of the Judicial Council was created in 2003, and in 2004, aer an amendment to the Organic Act of Guam eectuated by the United States Congress in Public Law 108-378, the The Superior Court of Guam (L-R) Family Court Referee Linda L.
  • The Importance of the Ohio Constitution

    The Importance of the Ohio Constitution

    CLE21-344 registration info 4.25 HOURS APR 12 Name STAY SAFE, STAY INFORMED WITH OSBA LIVE WEBINARS Phone Fax City State Zip Email Member No. / Supreme Court No. location P.O. BOX 16562 BOX P.O. OHIO 43216-6562 COLUMBUS, Live Interactive Webinar program pricing (includes electronic materials only) The Importance of Membership VP+ Membership Non-member the Ohio Constitution: Pre-Registration $146 $170 $244 Direct Democracy and Home Rule Return Service Requested group discount: Three or more registrants from the same office receive $25 off per registrant. Registrations must be submitted at the same time to be eligible. Exclusively Available via Live Interactive Webinar form of payment Enclosed is a check for: $ Join us for an in-depth focus on two Ohio issues - home rule and direct Make check payable to: Ohio State Bar Association democracy - that have origins in Ohio’s most recent 1912 Constitutional Convention. The program will also feature notable speakers, including Credit Card: Visa Mastercard American Express Discover Supreme Court of Ohio justices, who will discuss the importance of the Ohio Constitution and how the Supreme Court approaches state Card Number: Exp: constitutional issues. Signature: REGISTER ONLINE: REGISTER BY PHONE: DATE AND LOCATION: APR 12 | 12:30PM - 5:00PM InteractiveLive Webinar The Importance of the Ohio Constitution: Direct Democracy and Home Rule ohiobar.org/CLE21-344 (800) 232-7124 The Importance of the Ohio Constitution: CLE21-344 Direct Democracy and Home Rule Code: 0421 description program agenda This is the third program sponsored by the OSBA on the Ohio Constitution. Earlier 12:30 Welcome programs addressed the importance of the Ohio Constitution and developments in The Honorable Maureen O’Connor; Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio; Columbus Ohio and other states on rights-protecting state constitutional provisions.
  • New Mexico District Court Self Help Guide

    New Mexico District Court Self Help Guide

    NEW MEXICO DISTRICT COURT SELF HELP GUIDE Rev. December 2015 NM District Court Self Help Guide, December 2015 Page 1 of 29 The most current version of this guide is available at: http://www.nmcourts.gov/cgi/prose_lib/ NEW MEXICO DISTRICT COURT SELF HELP GUIDE Table of Contents Topic Page A. Representing Yourself – Basic Information 3 B. Domestic Violence 9 C. Dissolution of Marriage 13 D. Kinship Guardianship 15 E. Name Change 18 F. Probate 21 G. Appeals 24 H. Resource List 26 NM District Court Self Help Guide, December 2015 Page 2 of 29 The most current version of this guide is available at: http://www.nmcourts.gov/cgi/prose_lib/ REPRESENTING YOURSELF – BASIC INFORMATION This information guide is general in nature and is not designed to give legal advice. The court does not guarantee the legal sufficiency of this information guide or that it meets your specific needs. Because the law is constantly changing, this guide may not be current. Therefore, you may wish to seek the advice and assistance of an attorney. WHO THIS GUIDE IS INTENDED TO HELP This guide is intended to help individuals who are representing themselves, either as a plaintiff/petitioner or a defendant/respondent in a civil lawsuit or a domestic matter filed in a New Mexico State District Court. That means this guide is not intended to be used for any other type of court, including Metropolitan Court, Magistrate Court or Municipal Court. It does not have information about appeals from these courts. It is not to be used by defendants in a criminal case.
  • Cl-B Official General Election Ballot November 6, 2012 Fairfield County, Ohio

    Cl-B Official General Election Ballot November 6, 2012 Fairfield County, Ohio

    CL-B OFFICIAL GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT NOVEMBER 6, 2012 FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO Instructions to Voter • To vote: completely darken the oval ( ) to the left of your choice. • Note the permitted number of choices directly below the title of each candidate office. Do not mark the ballot for more choices than allowed. • If you mark the ballot for more choices than permitted, that contest or question will not be counted. • To write-in a candidate: completely darken the oval ( ) to the left of the blank line and write in the candidate's name. Only votes cast for candidates who filed as write-in candidates can be counted. • Do not write-in a candidate's name if that person's name is already printed on the ballot for that same contest. • If you make a mistake or want to change your vote: return your ballot to an election official and get a new one. You may ask for a new ballot up to two times. For President and Vice President For U.S. Senator For County Commissioner (Vote for not more than 1 pair) (Vote for not more than 1) (Full term commencing 1-3-2013) A vote for any candidates for President and (Vote for not more than 1) Vice President shall be a vote for the electors Sherrod Brown of those candidates whose names have been Democratic certified to the Secretary of State. Steven A. Davis For President Josh Mandel Republican Richard Duncan Republican Reed Bailey For Vice President Democratic Ricky Johnson Scott A. Rupert Nonparty candidate Nonparty candidates For Prosecuting Attorney For President For Representative to Congress (Vote for not more than 1) Virgil Goode (15th District) Gregg Marx For Vice President (Vote for not more than 1) Republican Jim Clymer Constitution Steve Stivers For Clerk of the Court of For President Republican Common Pleas (Vote for not more than 1) Gary Johnson Pat Lang For Vice President Democratic James P.
  • Sullivan-Leshin, Isaac, PRC

    Sullivan-Leshin, Isaac, PRC

    Sullivan-Leshin, Isaac, PRC From: Sullivan-Leshin, Isaac, PRC Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:44 PM To: Records, PRC, PRC Subject: 21-00095-UT; Filing Submission Attachments: 21-00095-UT, Final Order.pdf IN THE MATTER OF NEW MEXICO GAS COMPANY, INC.’S ) APPLICATION FOR AN EXPEDITED VARIANCE APPROVING ITS PLAN ) CASE NO. 21‐00095‐UT FOR RECOVERY OF THE GAS COSTS RELATED TO THE 2021 WINTER ) EVENT ) Please file the attached FINAL ORDER into the above captioned case. Thank you, Isaac Sullivan‐Leshin Paralegal for Office of General Counsel New Mexico Public Regulation Commission PO Box 1269 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504‐1269 isaac.sullivan‐[email protected] Phone: (505) 670‐4830 1 BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF NEW MEXICO GAS COMPANY, ) INC.’S APPLICATION FOR AN EXPEDITED VARIANCE ) CASE NO. 21-00095-UT APPROVING ITS PLAN FOR RECOVERY OF THE GAS ) COSTS RELATED TO THE 2021 WINTER EVENT ) FINAL ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (“NMPRC” or the “Commission”) on New Mexico Gas Company Inc.’s (“NMGC”) April 16, 2021 Application (“Application”) for Expedited Approval of a Variance Approving its Plan for Recovery of 2021 Winter Event Gas Costs Under the Extraordinary Circumstances Provision of 17.10.640.14. WHEREUPON, being duly informed, THE COMMISSION FINDS AND CONCLUDES: NMCG’S APPLICATION: NMGC’s Application, supported by the direct testimonies of Ryan A. Shell, Joshua J. Tilbury and Daniel P. Yardley, seeks approval of NMGC’s Plan for Recovery of its 2021 Winter Event Gas Costs under the Extraordinary Circumstances Provision of 17.10.640.14 NMAC.
  • Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States

    Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States

    Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States Composition of the Supreme Court Tuesday, July 20, 2021 Written Statement of Marin K. Levy Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law Co-Chair Bauer, Co-Chair Rodriguez, and distinguished members of the Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of Supreme Court expansion and composition. By way of background, I am a Professor of Law at the Duke University School of Law and a faculty advisor to the Bolch Judicial Institute. My research and teaching over the past twelve years have focused on judicial administration and appellate courts. It is a distinct honor and privilege to speak with you on these matters. Court expansion and other changes to the Court’s composition implicate fundamental questions about the role and operation of our nation’s highest court. These include whether expanding the Court would harm the institution’s legitimacy, whether expansion would prompt a series of expansions in the future, whether an expanded Court could function well as a single decision-making body, and whether expansion would contradict existing constitutional norms and conventions. Even if the answers to these questions were known, there is a larger background question to be answered—namely how such considerations should be weighted in assessing any proposal to change the Court’s structure. It is no easy task that the Commission has been given, and I hope that the legal community and public at large is cognizant of this. In contrast to the subject of the panel, my own testimony will be fairly circumscribed.
  • Oregon Supreme Court Lays Down the Law on the Product Liability Statute of Limitations by Michael “Sam” Sandmire, Partner, Litigation Group and Sara L

    Oregon Supreme Court Lays Down the Law on the Product Liability Statute of Limitations by Michael “Sam” Sandmire, Partner, Litigation Group and Sara L

    Oregon Supreme Court Lays Down the Law on the Product Liability Statute of Limitations By Michael “Sam” Sandmire, Partner, Litigation Group and Sara L. Tait, Law Clerk, Litigation Group October 2002 In a little over a year, the Oregon Supreme Court has issued a trilogy of major interpretations of Oregon’s product liability statutes: Gladhart v. Oregon Vineyard Supply Co., 332 Or 226, 26 P3d 817 (2001); Kambury v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 334 Or 367 (2002); and Griffith v. Blatt, 334 Or 456 (2002). All three of the decisions have focused on statutory construction, and the results demonstrate the reluctance of Oregon’s highest court to insert common law precepts into the product liability statutory scheme. The cases further spotlight the continuing struggle to identify the contours of Oregon’s product liability law, which arguably encompasses far more than the doctrine of strict liability. In Gladhart, the Court interpreted ORS 30.905(2), the “product liability” statute of limitations. 332 Or at 229. ORS 30.905(2) mandates that a product liability action “shall be commenced not later than two years after the date on which the death, injury, or damage complained of occurs.” The Court rejected the application of the “discovery rule” to this statute, noting that “[a] discovery rule cannot be assumed, but must be found in the statute of limitations itself.” Id. at 230. In the absence of explicit language that the statute runs upon “discovery” or “accrual,” the Court concluded that “[t]he words ‘death, injury, or damage’ [as] used in ORS 30.905(2) refer to events, not to abstractions or ideas.
  • APPENDIX 1A APPENDIX a UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the SIXTH CIRCUIT ———— No

    APPENDIX 1A APPENDIX a UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the SIXTH CIRCUIT ———— No

    APPENDIX 1a APPENDIX A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ———— No. 19-3196 ———— WILLIAM T. SCHMITT; CHAD THOMPSON; DEBBIE BLEWITT, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FRANK LAROSE, Ohio Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellant. ———— Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus No. 2:18-cv-00966— Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., Chief District Judge. ———— Argued: June 26, 2019 Decided and Filed: August 7, 2019 ———— Before: CLAY, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges. ———— COUNSEL ARGUED: Benjamin M. Flowers, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Mark R. Brown, CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. ON 2a BRIEF: Benjamin M. Flowers, Michael J. Hendershot, Stephen P. Carney, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTOR- NEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Mark R. Brown, CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, Columbus, Ohio, Mark G. Kafantaris, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which CLAY, J., joined, and BUSH, J., joined in part. BUSH, J. (pp. 15–26), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and in the judgment. OPINION HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs William T. Schmitt and Chad Thompson submitted proposed ballot initiatives to the Portage County Board of Elections that would effectively decriminal- ize marijuana possession in the Ohio villages of Garrettsville and Windham. The Board declined to certify the proposed initiatives after concluding that the initiatives fell outside the scope of the municipali- ties’ legislative authority. Plaintiffs then brought this action asserting that the statutes governing Ohio’s municipal ballot-initiative process impose a prior restraint on their political speech, violating their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.