DOCSLIB.ORG

American Bar Association in Support of Petitioners ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
American Bar Association in Support of Petitioners ______ No. 18-1323 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _____________ JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L.L.C., et al., Petitioners, v. REBEKAH GEE, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS, Respondent. _____________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS _______________ JUDY PERRY MARTINEZ CLIFTON S. ELGARTEN Counsel of Record KEITH J. HARRISON AMERICAN BAR GLORIA MARTINEZ TRATTLES ASSOCIATION AMANDA SHAFER BERMAN 321 N. Clark St. TIANA L. RUSSELL Chicago, IL 60654 TYLER O’CONNOR (312) 988-5000 CROWELL & MORING LLP AmicusBriefs@ 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. americanbar.org Washington, DC 20004 Counsel for Amicus Curiae American Bar Association i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF INTEREST ................................... 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ......................... 3 ARGUMENT .............................................................. 4 I. THE RULE OF LAW REQUIRES LOWER COURTS TO ADHERE TO PRECEDENT, IN PRINCIPLE AND IN PRACTICE ............... 4 A. Stare Decisis Is Central To Our Legal System And Sustaining Respect For The Judiciary. ............................................. 4 B. The Rule of Law Also Requires Faithful Adherence To The Structural Components of Our Legal System. ........... 11 II. WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH DIRECTLY CONTROLS THIS CASE ................................ 13 A. The Fifth Circuit Erred In Finding Cognizable Benefits .................................. 14 1. The Legal Analysis ............................. 14 2. The Factual Analysis ......................... 17 B. The Burdens of Act 620 ............................. 19 1. The Legal Analysis ............................. 19 2. The Factual Analysis ......................... 21 a. Doe 2 ............................................ 22 b. Doe 3 ............................................ 24 ii CONCLUSION ......................................................... 26 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases Amadeo v. Zant, 486 U.S. 214 (1988) .............................................. 12 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564 (1985) .................................. 12, 19, 25 Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) ................................................5 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) ....................................................7 Gamble v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1960 (2019) ............................................7 Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982) ............................................ 5, 7 Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington, 475 U.S. 709 (1986) .............................................. 11 Inwood Labs., Inc., v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982) .................................. 11, 24, 25 Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 320 F. Supp. 3d 828 (S.D. Miss. 2018) ................ 10 June Med. Servs. v. Gee, 905 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2018) ............................ 9, 16 iv June Med. Servs. v. Kliebert, 250 F. Supp. 3d 27, 63–65, 86–87 (M.D. La. 2017) ....................................................... passim Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) ............................................6 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816) ................................................ 10 Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782 (2014) ................................................6 Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009) ................................................7 Moore v. Texas, 139 S. Ct. 666 (2019) ..............................................2 Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) ...................................... 6, 7, 10 Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) .............................. 5, 13, 17, 21 Scheiber v. Dolby Labs., Inc., 293 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2002) ................................6 Teva Pharm. U.S.A. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2015) ............................................. 12 Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533 (1983) ................................................6 United States v. Martinez-Cruz, 736 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ............................ 3, 8 v Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016) .................................. passim Winslow v. F.E.R.C., 587 F.3d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ..............................6 State Cases Burns v. Cline, 387 P. 3d 348 (Okla. 2016) .................................. 10 Federal Statutes 28 U.S.C. App. note (2012) (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) .............................................. 11 State Statutes La. Rev. Stat. § 40:1061.10 ............................... passim Federal Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), advisory committee’s note to 1946 amendment ..................................... 11 Other Authorities ABA Goal IV, https://perma.cc/5UFF-JX2Q .............. 1 ABA Policy #111 (adopted midyear 2006), https://perma.cc/Z6YX-AJJ8 ..................................1 Bryan Garner et al., The Law of Judicial Precedent 21 (2016) ............................................ 5, 8 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 377 (1833) ......................................................................5 STATEMENT OF INTEREST1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.3, the American Bar Association (ABA), as amicus curiae, respectfully submits this brief in support of the Petitioner. The ABA is the largest voluntary association of attorneys and legal professionals in the world. Its members include prosecutors, public defenders, and private defense counsel, as well as attorneys in law firms, corporations, non-profit organizations, and government agencies. The ABA’s membership also includes judges, legislators, law professors, law students, and non-lawyer associates.2 Promoting the rule of law is central to the ABA’s mission as the “national representative of the legal profession”3 In furtherance of this mission, the ABA adopted in 2006 a Statement of Core Principles, committing to key rule of law principles.4 The ABA has also established a Rule of Law Initiative that works to “promote justice, economic opportunity and 1 No part of this brief was authored by counsel for any party, and no person or entity has made any monetary contribution to preparation or submission of this brief other than amicus curiae and its counsel. Pursuant to Rule 37.3(a), amicus curiae states that counsel of record for petitioners and respondents have consented to the filing of this brief. 2 Neither this brief nor the decision to file it should be interpreted as reflecting the views of any judicial member. No member of the ABA Judicial Division Council participated in this brief’s preparation or in the adoption or endorsement of its positions. 3 See ABA Goal IV, https://perma.cc/5UFF-JX2Q. 4 ABA Policy #111 (adopted midyear 2006), https://perma.cc/Z6YX-AJJ8. 2 human dignity through the rule of law.” ABA, Rule of Law Initiative Program Book 4 (2016). The ABA has conducted training on the rule of law internationally, holding the U.S. judicial system up as a model and highlighting the adherence to precedent as key to its integrity. The ABA has submitted a number of amicus briefs urging faithful application of rule of law principles in order to preserve the integrity of, and public confidence in, our judicial system. For example, the ABA’s policy on advancing the rule of law provided the basis for the ABA’s amicus curiae brief in Moore v. Texas, 139 S. Ct. 666 (2019), in which the ABA explained: “No practice is more vital to preserving the rule of law—and ensuring that the ABA’s promotion of that rule is legitimized in the eyes of developing countries—than the following by lower courts of binding precedent of this Court.” ABA Amicus Brief at 5, n.4. In addition, the ABA has an interest in this case because of its policy opposing laws that interfere with access to healthcare. In particular, the ABA resolved on August 13, 2019, that it “urges federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments not to impose upon medical facilities or healthcare providers licensing or other regulatory requirements that are not medically necessary or that have the purpose or effect of restricting availability or burdening patients’ access to healthcare services.”5 The ABA views the Louisiana statute at issue here to be inconsistent with this basic precept. 5 ABA Resolution 19A115F (Aug. 13, 2019). 3 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This case raises significant concerns about adherence to basic rule of law principles and, in particular, the manner in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit treated both this Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016) and the district court’s decision below. Stare decisis is a centerpiece of the rule of law. The integrity of the American legal system depends on our lower courts applying precedent faithfully, following “both the words and music of Supreme Court opinions.” United States v. Martinez-Cruz, 736 F.3d 999, 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). It is particularly important that the lower courts hew closely to precedent when addressing politically charged issues that are the subject of intense public debate. No matter how deeply held, and morally grounded, one’s disagreement with this Court’s precedents may be, the rule of law requires that lower courts strictly apply this Court’s directives, rather than avoid their application. There is also an important
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Student's Guide to the Leading Law Firms and Sets in the UK
    2021 The student’s guide to the leading law firms and sets in the UK e-Edition chambers-student.com Connect with us on cbaK Travers Smith’s mix of formal and informal training is second to none. It enables those coming fresh from law school to quickly become familiar with complex concepts and provides them with the necessary tools to throw themselves into their team’s work right from the start. www.traverssmith.com 10 Snow Hill, London EC1A 2AL +44 (0) 20 7295 3000 Contents Law school The Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) p.37 An introduction to the SQE with ULaw p.41 Solicitors’ timetable p.43 Barristers’ timetable p.44 The Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) p.45 The Legal Practice Course (LPC) p.49 The Bar Course p.52 How to fund law school p.55 Law school course providers p.57 Contents https://www.chambersstudent.co.uk The Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) The Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) From 2021 there’s going to be an entirely new way of qualifying as a solicitor replacing the GDL, LPC and training contract. If you’re thinking ‘SQE OMG!’ – don’t fear: here’s a quick guide. What’s going on? volve a practical testing ‘pilot’ with students. The regula- In winter 2016/17 the Solicitors Regulation Authority tor has stated that it expects various other providers (i.e. (SRA) dropped a bombshell on the legal profession: it was probably law schools and the current GDL/LPC providers) going ahead with its plan for the Solicitors Qualifying Ex- to offer preparatory courses for both stages of the SQE.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines to Help Lawyers Practicing in the Court of Chancery
    GUIDELINES TO HELP LAWYERS PRACTICING IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY The vast majority of attorneys who litigate in and appear before the Court conduct themselves in accordance with the highest traditions of Chancery practice. These Guidelines are intended to ensure that all attorneys are aware of the expectations of the Court and to provide helpful guidance in practicing in our Court. These Guidelines are not binding Court Rules, they are intended as a practice aid that will allow our excellent Bar to handle cases even more smoothly and to minimize disputes over process, rather than the substantive merits. These Guidelines do not establish a “standard of conduct” or a “standard of care” by which the performance of attorneys in a given case can or should be measured. The Guidelines are not intended to be used as a sword to wound adversaries. To the contrary, they are intended to reduce conflicts among counsel and parties over non-merits issues, and allow them to more efficiently and less contentiously handle their disputes in this Court. Accordingly, the Court does not intend that these Guidelines, or the sample forms attached hereto, be cited as authority in the context of any dispute before the Court. These guidelines reflect some suggested best practices for moving cases forward to completion in the Court of Chancery. They have been developed jointly by the Court and its Rules Committee to provide help to practitioners. The members of the Court and its Rules Committee recognize that a particular situation may call for the parties to proceed in a different manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Porter V. Knickrehm
    Case 4:03-cv-00812-SWW Document 66 Filed 07/27/04 Page 1 of 34 • , &.8rufo!4ED ERN OlsTRICcTT COURT 'ARIW/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT couRJUL 272 SAs EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARI(MI(~§ W 00+ WESTERN DIVISION BY:~~ACI( CL£:RI( ~ HARVE PORTER, et aI., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) No.4:03 CV008l2SWW ) KURT KNICKREHM, et al., ) ) Defendants, ) ) and ) ) FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF CARE FACILITY ) RESIDENTS AND ELLEN SUE GIBSON ) ) Defendant Intervenors. ) PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS AND EOUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS Plaintiffs seek summary jUdgment on their Due Process and Equal Protection claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Arkansas Local Rule 56.1. As demonstrated below, the motion should be granted on both claims because there are no disputed issues of material fact and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, lnc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Arnold v. City oj" Columbia, Mo., 197 FJd 1217, 1220 (8 th Cir. 1999). Case 4:03-cv-00812-SWW Document 66 Filed 07/27/04 Page 2 of 34 , I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs brought this action to challenge the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 20- 48-401 et seq. (Michie 2003 Supp!.) and Development Disability Services Director's Office Policy Manual ("Manual") numbers 1020, 1037, 1053, and 1086 because Arkansas law and policies fail to provide adequate judicial hearings at which adults whose liberty is at stake can contest the state's effort to institutionalize them. Plaintiff Harve Porter is an adult diagnosed with moderate mental retardation who is currently involuntarily confined at the state's Alexander Human Development Center ("ALHDC).
    [Show full text]
  • Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law in the State of North Carolina."
    SECTION .0100 - ORGANIZATION .0101 Definitions For purposes of this Chapter, the following shall apply: (1) "Chapter" or "Rules" refers to the "Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law in the State of North Carolina." (2) "Board" refers to the "Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina." A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum, and the action of a majority of a quorum, present and voting, shall constitute the action of the Board. (3) "Executive Director" refers to the "Executive Director of the Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina." (4) "Filing" or "filed" shall mean received in the office of the Board of Law Examiners. Except that applications placed in the United States mail properly addressed to the Board of Law Examiners and bearing sufficient first class postage and postmarked by the United States Postal Service or date-stamped by any recognized delivery service on or before a deadline date will be considered as having been timely filed if all required fees are included in the mailing. Mailings which are postmarked after a deadline or which, if postmarked on or before a deadline, do not include required fees or which include a check in payment of required fees which is dishonored because of insufficient funds will not be considered as filed. Applications which are not properly signed and notarized; or which do not include the properly executed Authorization and Release forms; or which are illegible; or with incomplete answers to questions will not be considered filed and will be returned.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawyers Training Systems in the EU Estonia
    Lawyers training systems in the EU Estonia Information provided by: Estonian Bar Association (Eesti Advokatuur) April, 2014 DESCRIPTION OF THE NATIONAL TRAINING SYSTEM FOR LAWYERS in Estonia 1. Access to the Profession Higher education / university YES education A law degree is compulsory YES Steps to becoming a fully-fledged • Examination /Assessment of candidate by the bar lawyer: or by a committee established by the bar • Evaluation of the candidate and acceptance by a law firm (Attorneys may provide legal services only through a law firm. • Completion of an induction period • Registration with the Bar (after passing the attorney-at-law examination or if one has passed the examination and has practiced as an assistant to an attorney-at-law for at least 3 years) In Estonia attorneys-at-law are fully fledged lawyers. Since the 1st of March 2013 there are 2 types of members of the Bar Association: attorneys-at-law and assistants to the attorney-at-law. Assistants are members of the Estonian Bar Association who can practice under the supervision of an Attorney- at-law. Attorneys-at-law can be admitted to the Bar Association if: 1 Country: Estonia • they have passed the attorney-at-law examination; • they have passed the examination and are Doctors of Law (PhD holders); • they have been attorneys-at-law and join the Bar Association within 5 years after exclusion from Bar Association (according to the Bar Association Act § 36 par.1 p.1 or 4, an attorney may be excluded from the Bar Association following resolution of the Bar Association if he has submitted an application or if he has not practiced as an attorney for more than 3 consecutive years due to health reasons or other reasons); • they have worked for at least 3 years as judges, notaries or prosecutors may join Bar Association within 5 years after leaving their post (or as supreme judge, judge of the ECJ, of the General Court of the EU, Chancellor of Justice – Oiguskanstler (The Chancellor of Justice in Estonia combines the function of the general body of petition and the guardian of constitutionality.
    [Show full text]
  • How Lawyers Can Avoid the Unauthorized Practice of Law: Simple Steps for Compliance with Rule 49
    How Lawyers Can Avoid the Unauthorized Practice of Law: Simple Steps for Compliance With Rule 49 Anthony C. Epstein Chair, Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Why should a publication for lawyers include an article about the rule against the unauthorized practice of law? Shouldn’t this article be published where it will be read by the nonlawyers at whom the rule against unauthorized practice is aimed? The answer is simple, but perhaps surprising. The incidence of nonlawyers trying to pass as lawyers in the District of Columbia is actually quite low, and such cases comprise only a very small portion of the docket of the Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law of the D.C. Court of Appeals. The vast majority of the Committee’s docket involves complaints about lawyers admitted in other jurisdictions who practice in the District without becoming members of the D.C. Bar. These cases involve D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 49, which says what a lawyer can and cannot do in the District without being admitted to the D.C. Bar. Because almost all of the lawyers who run afoul of Rule 49 practice in partnership or association with D.C. Bar members, D.C. Bar members ought to be concerned—and not least because they have an ethical obligation to ensure that their colleagues comply with the ethics rule against the unauthorized practice of law. The fact that so many lawyers, with the knowing or unwitting concurrence of their law firms, violate Rule 49 is the bad news.
    [Show full text]
  • Beware: Legal Privilege Rules Differ Between the U.S. and the Eu
    CLIENT MEMORANDUM BEWARE: LEGAL PRIVILEGE RULES DIFFER BETWEEN THE U.S. AND THE EU I. Introduction Jurisdictions in the United States and Europe differ significantly in their approach to the privilege afforded to lawyers to protect against the disclosure of confidential information related to the attorney-client relationship. In an era of increasing globalization, antitrust proceedings and regulatory investigations frequently are multi-jurisdictional, involving parallel actions by authorities on both sides of the Atlantic. The adequate protection of clients’ interests in such an environment requires a sound understanding of the distinctions between privilege rules in the U.S. and the EU. Legal privilege in the United States, which encompasses at least the attorney-client privilege and the work-product protection, is more expansive than in Europe, but is subject to change over time and varies by geographic region and by context. Privileged material in the U.S. is also subject to waiver, with certain exceptions, if it is shared with those outside the attorney-client relationship. This memorandum will note some important differences between privilege law in the United States and Europe, focusing on the practical implications for attorneys involved in cross-border communications and the exchange of confidential information with legal counsel or clients overseas. In Europe, the attorney-client privilege is called the legal professional privilege (“LPP”), and protects the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients. The doctrine was first formulated in the AM & S judgment in 19821 and its scope was recently refined in Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission (“Akzo”).2 The September 2007 judgment of the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) in Akzo is currently under appeal to the European 3 Court of Justice (“ECJ”).
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Legal Framework for the Free Movement of Lawyers
    Evaluation of the Legal Framework for the Free Movement of Lawyers Final Report Projectnumber: BA03973 This study has been financed by the European Commission, DG Internal Market and Services (MARKT/2011/071/E) Mr. Dr. S.J.F.J. Claessens, M.C.C. van Haeften MSc, Dr. N.J. Philipsen, Drs. B.J. Buiskool, prof. dr. H.E.G.S. Schneider, Dr. S.L.T. Schoenmaekers, drs. D.H. Grijpstra, prof. dr. H.J. Hellwig (advisor). Zoetermeer, November 28, 2012 The responsibility for the contents of this report lies with Panteia. Quoting of numbers and/or text as an explanation or support in papers, essays and books is permitted only when the source is clearly mentioned. No part of this publication may be copied and/or published in any form or by any means, or stored in a retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Panteia. Panteia does not accept responsibility for printing errors and/or other imperfections. 2 Contents Executive Summary 5 A Introduction 5 B Results of the Study 6 C Main Conclusions 11 1 Introduction and Research Method 15 1.1 Introduction to the Legal Framework 15 1.2 Research Objectives and Success Criteria 17 1.3 Research Method 23 1.4 Structure of this Report 32 2 The Legal Framework for the Free Movement of Lawyers 35 2.1 The Profession of Lawyer in the European Union 35 2.2 The Lawyers’ Services Directive (77/249/EEC) 43 2.3 The Lawyers’ Establishment Directive (98/5/EC) 47 2.4 The Professional Qualifications Directive 55 2.5 Other Relevant Directives 64 2.6 Overview of the Legal Framework 67 2.7 Systemic Barriers 70 3
    [Show full text]
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Attorneys in Public Service December 3, 2008
    NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE ON ATTORNEYS IN PUBLIC SERVICE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDICIARY MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES Adopted by the New York State Bar Association Subcommittee on the Administrative Law Judiciary November 7, 2008 Adopted by the New York State Bar Association Committee on Attorneys in Public Service December 3, 2008 Approved by the New York State Bar Association House of Delegates April 4, 2009 NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION Committee on Attorneys in Public Service Subcommittee on the Administrative Law Judiciary COMMITTEE ON MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES* Hon. Catherine M. Bennett, ALJ Hon. John H. Farrell, ALJ Spencer Fisher, Esq. David B. Goldin, Esq. Hon. James F. Horan, ALJ Hon. Elizabeth H. Liebschutz, Chief ALJ Hon. Peter S. Loomis, Chief ALJ Hon. Marjorie A. Martin, ALJ Hon. James T. McClymonds, Chief ALJ Hon. Edward R. Mevec, ALJ Christina L. Roberts, Esq. Joanna Weiss, Esq. Hon. Marc P. Zylberberg, ALJ * The Committee would like to especially recognize and thank Ms. Quinn Morris, Legal Intern and recent Albany Law School graduate, and Mr. Paul Buchbinder, Legal Intern, for their invaluable assistance in preparing this Model Code of Judicial Conduct for State Administrative Law Judges. -ii- MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES Table of Contents Preamble......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Paralegal Regulation by State
    Paralegal Regulation by State Updated October 2019 NFPA Regulation Review Committee Tom Stephenson, ILAP; Coordinator 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Regulation by State ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Alabama ................................................................................................................................................................3 Alaska ....................................................................................................................................................................3 Arizona ..................................................................................................................................................................4 Arkansas ................................................................................................................................................................4 California ...............................................................................................................................................................5 Colorado ................................................................................................................................................................6 Connecticut ...........................................................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • In the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware San
    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SAN ANTONIO FIRE & POLICE PENSION ) CONFIDENTIAL -- FUND, on behalf of itself and all others ) FILED UNDER SEAL similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 4446-VCL ) AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ) BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANK OF ) NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A., ) DANIEL M. BRADBURY, JOSEPH C. ) COOK, Jr., ADRIAN ADAMS, STEVEN R. ) ALTMAN, TERESA BECK, KARIN ) EASTHAM, JAMES R. GAVIN, GINGER L. ) GRAHAM, HOWARD E. GREENE, Jr., JAY ) S. SKYLER, JOSEPH P. SULLIVAN, and ) JAMES N. WILSON, ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________ ) AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ) ) Cross-Claimant, ) ) v. ) ) THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST ) COMPANY, N.A., as Trustee for Indenture ) Dated as of June 8, 2007, ) ) Cross-Claim Defendant ) YOU ARE IN POSSESSION OF A DOCUMENT FILED IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY THAT IS CONFIDENTIAL AND FILED UNDER SEAL. THIS DOCUMENT IS CONFIDENTIAL AND FILED UNDER SEAL. REVIEW AND ACCESS TO THIS DOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT BY PRIOR COURT ORDER. RLF1-3391876-1 If you are not authorized by Court order to view or retrieve this document, read no further than this page. You should contact the following person: Raymond J. DiCamillo (#3188) OF COUNSEL: Margot F. Alicks (#5127) Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. Robert A. Sacks 920 North King Street Diane L. McGimsey Wilmington Delaware 19801 Orly Z. Elson (302) 651-7700 Damion D.D. Robinson Attorneys for Defendants and Cross- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Claimant 1888 Century Park East Los Angeles, California 90067-1725 (310) 712-6600 Thad J.
    [Show full text]
  • Precedent and Justice William D
    Valparaiso University ValpoScholar Law Faculty Publications Law Faculty Presentations and Publications 2011 Precedent and Justice William D. Bader David R. Cleveland Valparaiso University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.valpo.edu/law_fac_pubs Part of the Jurisprudence Commons, and the Legal Writing and Research Commons Recommended Citation William D. Bader & David R. Cleveland, Precedent and Justice, 49 Duq. L. Rev. 35 (2011). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Presentations and Publications at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Precedent and Justice William D. Bader* and David R. Cleveland** Abstract Precedent is the cornerstone of common law method. It is the core mechanism by which the common law reaches just outcomes. Through creation and application of precedent, common law seeks to produce justice. The appellate courts' practice of issuing un­ published, non-precedential opinions has generated considerable discussion about the value of precedent, but that debate has cen­ tered on pragmatic and formalistic values. This essay argues that the practice of issuing non-precedential opinions does more than offend constitutional dictates and present pragmatic problems to the appellate system; abandoning precedent undermines justice itself. Issuance of the vast majority of decisions as non­ precedential tears the justice-seeking mechanism of precedent from the heart of our common law system. In Memoriam Judge RichardS. Arnold (1936 2004) "It is the property of a diamond ..
    [Show full text]