DOCSLIB.ORG

Its Brief, Lucky Says That Defense Preclusion Is Inefficient and Unfair

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Its Brief, Lucky Says That Defense Preclusion Is Inefficient and Unfair No. 18-1086 In the Supreme Court of the United States Lucky Brand Dungarees, et al., Petitioners, v. Marcel Fashion Group, Inc., Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT Eugene R. Fidell Michael B. Kimberly Yale Law School Counsel of Record Supreme Court Clinic Paul W. Hughes 127 Wall Street Andrew A. Lyons-Berg New Haven, CT 06511 McDermott Will & Emery LLP 500 North Capitol Street NW Louis R. Gigliotti Washington, DC 20001 Louis R. Gigliotti, PA (202) 756-8000 1605 Dewey Street [email protected] Hollywood, FL 33020 Robert L. Greener Law Office of Robert L. Greener P.C. 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Counsel for Respondent TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................. 1 Statement .................................................................... 6 A. The 2001 lawsuit and settlement .................. 6 B. Lucky’s continued infringement of Marcel’s mark, and the 2005 suit .................. 6 C. Lucky’s identical post-judgment infringement, and the present suit ............. 11 Summary of Argument .............................................. 16 Argument ................................................................... 20 I. A defendant who loses in one lawsuit may not raise in a subsequent lawsuit involving the same cause of action a defense that was available in the first lawsuit .............................. 20 A. Res judicata promotes repose and the finality of judgments, discourages repetitive litigation, and preserves judicial resources ......................................... 22 B. Res judicata precludes not only claims, but also defenses .......................................... 24 1. Defense preclusion generally bars a former defendant from converting a neglected defense into a claim .............. 26 2. Defense preclusion also bars a defendant from raising in a second action a defense omitted from a first action addressing the same claims ....... 31 II. The Second Circuit correctly applied defense preclusion in this case ........................................ 36 ii A. This case and the 2005 lawsuit concern a common nucleus of operative facts ........... 37 B. Defense preclusion is flexible and discretionary, and its application in this case was manifestly fair .............................. 42 III. Lucky’s remaining objections are not persuasive ........................................................... 46 A. Davis does not control .................................. 47 B. Defense preclusion is consistent with the federal rules and due process ................ 49 Conclusion ................................................................. 53 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Allan Block Co. v. County Materials Corp., 512 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2008) ................................ 49 Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) .................................... 35, 41, 48 Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) .............................. 5, 23, 37, 39 B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015) .......................................... 23 Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Association, 283 U.S. 522 (1931) .............................................. 23 Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127 (1979) ........................................ 26, 36 Capitol Hill Group v. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman LLC, 569 F.3d 485 (D.C. Cir. 2009) .............................. 50 City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013) .............................................. 52 City of Beloit v. Morgan, 74 U.S. 619 (1868) ........................................ passim Cogdell v. Hospital Center at Orange, 560 A.2d 1169 (N.J. 1989) .................................... 35 Commerce Bancorp, Inc. v. BankAtlantic, 2004 WL 612525 (D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2004) ............. 50 Compania Financiara Libano, S.A. v. Simmons, 53 S.W.3d 365 (Tex. 2001) ................................... 25 Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Sargent, 27 Ohio St. 233 (1875) ......................................... 23 iv Cases—continued Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2009) .................... 41, 45-46 Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351 (1877) ........................................ passim Currier v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 2144 (2018) ................................. 2, 37-38 Davis v. Brown, 94 U.S. 423 (1877) ........................................ passim Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981) .............................................. 23 Foster v. Hallco Manufacturing Co., 947 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ........................ 25, 30 Fox v. Maulding, 112 F.3d 453 (10th Cir. 1997) .............................. 29 GLF Construction Corp. v. LAN/STV, 414 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2005) ................................ 25 Golden v. Commissioner, 548 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2008) ................................ 30 Harsh International, Inc. v. Monfort Industries, Inc., 662 N.W.2d 574 (Neb. 2003) .......................... 25, 29 Hauschildt v. Beckingham, 686 N.W.2d 829 (Minn. 2004) .............................. 44 Henderson v. Henderson, 67 Eng. Rep. 313 (1843) ....................................... 33 Henderson v. Snider Bros., 439 A.2d 481 (D.C. 1981) ..................................... 29 Henry Modell & Co. v. Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, 502 N.E.2d 978 (N.Y. 1986) ........................... 29, 51 v Cases—continued Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228 (7th Cir. 1986) .............................. 29 Herrmann v. Cencom Cable Associates, 999 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1993) ................................ 38 J.C. & S.C. v. Adoption of Minor Child, 797 So. 2d 209 (Miss. 2001) ................................. 25 Johnson’s Island, Inc. v. Board of Township Trustees, 431 N.E.2d 672 (Ohio 1982) ........................... 25, 29 Jones v. Strauss, 800 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. 1990) ................................. 29 Kale v. Combined Insurance Co. of America, 924 F.2d 1161 (1st Cir. 1991) .............................. 38 Kozyra v. Allen, 973 F.2d 1110 (3d Cir. 1992) ............................... 35 Lamb v. Geovjian, 683 A.2d 731 (Vt. 1996) .................................. 26-27 Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322 (1955) .................................... 4, 13, 41 Lord v. Garland, 168 P.2d 5 (Cal. 1946) .......................................... 46 Martin v. Cash Exp., Inc., 60 So. 3d 236 (Ala. 2010) .......................... 25, 28-29 Martino v. McDonald’s Systems, Inc., 598 F.2d 1079 (7th Cir. 1979) ........................ 29, 51 Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 922 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2019) .............................. 41 Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U.S. 661 (1944) .............................................. 34 vi Cases—continued Mills v. City of Grand Forks, 813 N.W.2d 574 (N.D. 2012) ................................ 25 Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979) .............................................. 23 Moore v. Harjo, 144 F.2d 318 (10th Cir. 1944) ........................ 32, 50 Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. 593 (1926) ........................................ 38, 42 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems v. Wise, 304 P.3d 1192 (Haw. 2013) ........................ 25 Nasalok Coating Corp. v. Nylok Corp., 522 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................... 29, 32 Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110 (1983) ........................................ 22, 26 Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Allianz Risk Transfer AG, 96 N.E.3d 737 (N.Y. 2018) ........................ 48-49, 51 Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) .................................. 15, 23, 45 Pension Benefits Guarantee Corp. v. Beverley, 404 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2005) ................................ 25 Presidential Bank, FSB v. 1733 27th St. SE LLC, 318 F. Supp. 3d 61 (D.D.C. 2018) ................... 34-35 Prewett v. Weems, 749 F.3d 454 (6th Cir. 2014) ................................ 25 Reed v. Allen, 286 U.S. 191 (1932) .............................................. 23 R.G. Financial Corp. v. Vergara-Nunez, 446 F.3d 178 (1st Cir. 2006) ................................ 50 vii Cases—continued Richmond v. Wawaloam Reservation, Inc., 850 A.2d 924 (R.I. 2004) .................................. 1, 25 Riverwood Commercial Park v. Standard Oil Co., 729 N.W.2d 101 (N.D. 2007) ................................ 45 Robbins v. Daniel, 284 N.W. 793 (Iowa 1939) .................................... 29 Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343 (1948) ........................................ 51, 52 Slider v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 557 S.E.2d 883 (W. Va. 2001) .............................. 25 Sparks v. Ewing, 163 So. 112 (Fla. 1935) ........................................ 52 Spiker v. Spiker, 708 N.W.2d 347 (Iowa 2006) ................................ 24 Stout v. Lye, 103 U.S. 66 (1880) ..................................... 27-28, 30 Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) ................................................ 1 TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc., 758 F.3d 493 (2d Cir. 2014) ................................. 41 Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby v. Brown, 732 F.2d 345 (3d Cir. 1984) ................................. 25 United States v. Beane, 841 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2016) ............................ 25 United States v. Bryant, 15 F.3d 756 (8th Cir. 1994) .................................. 25 United States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307 (2011)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fair Trial and Prejudicial Publicity: a Need for Reform J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 17 | Issue 1 Article 6 1-1965 Fair Trial and Prejudicial Publicity: A Need for Reform J. Thomas McCarthy Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation J. Thomas McCarthy, Fair Trial and Prejudicial Publicity: A Need for Reform, 17 Hastings L.J. 79 (1965). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol17/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. FAIR TRIAL AND PREJUDICIAL PUBLICITY: A NEED FOR REFORM By J. THo AS McCA I* Legal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper.1 Prologue: A Case in Point THE murder suspect was arrested at 1:45 Friday afternoon and taken directly to police headquarters. He was questioned intermit- tently for about twelve hours and continued to deny categorically his guilt. Consistent with its policy of allowing news representatives in the working quarters of the police building, the police made every effort to keep the press informed as to the progress of the investiga- tion. As a result, the press publicized virtually all information about the case as soon as it was uncovered by the police. Impromptu and clamorous press conferences were held in the corridor at headquarters. The Chief of Police appeared in interviews on television and radio, expressed his opinion, and gave detailed in- formation on the progress of the case.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconsidering Res Judicata: a Comparative Perspective
    SINAI_PROOF2 3/25/2011 1:53:37 PM RECONSIDERING RES JUDICATA: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE YUVAL SINAI* “Res judicata changes white to black and black to white, it makes the crooked straight and the straight crooked.”1 INTRODUCTION Final judgments create legal barriers to relitigation. These barriers are the rules of res judicata (“RJ”), which means “a matter that has been adjudicated.”2 The term res judicata refers to the various ways in which one judgment exercises a binding effect on another. The rules of RJ have undergone a significant change in scope.3 In the old common law, its scope was quite narrow. A judgment entered in a case on one form of action did not prevent litigants from pursuing another form of action, although only one recovery was permitted for a single loss.4 With changes in the rules of litigation as part of the evolution of modern procedure, the scope of the rules of RJ is wider. The basic proposition of RJ, however, has remained the same: a party should not be allowed to relitigate a matter that it has already litigated.5 As the modern rules of procedure have expanded the scope of the initial opportunity to litigate, they have correspondingly limited subsequent opportunities to litigate a subsequent one.6 As we shall see, this is the clear tendency in the modern law of RJ. * Ph.D; L.L.B; Senior Lecturer of Civil Procedure and Jewish Law, Director of the Center for the Application of Jewish Law (ISMA), Law School, Netanya Academic College, and also teaches in the Law Faculty of Bar-Ilan University (Israel); Visiting Professor at McGill University, Canada (2007- 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Res Judicata As Requisite for Justice Kevin M
    Cornell University Law School Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Cornell Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship Spring 2016 Res Judicata as Requisite for Justice Kevin M. Clermont Cornell Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub Part of the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Kevin M. Clermont, "Res Judicata as Requisite for Justice," 68 Rutgers University Law Review (2016) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RES JUDICATA As REQUISITE FOR JUSTICE Kevin M. Clermont* Abstract From historical,jurisprudential, and comparative perspectives, this Article tries to synthesize res judicata while integrating it with the rest of law. From near their beginnings, all systems of justice have delivered a core of res judicata comprising the substance of bar and defense preclusion. This core is universal not because it represents a universal value, but rather because it responds to a universal institutional need. Any justice system must have adjudicators; to be effective, their judgments must mean something with bindingness; and the minimal bindingness is that, except in specified circumstances, the disgruntled cannot undo a judgment in an effort to change the outcome. By some formulation of rules and exceptions, each justice system must and does deliver this core of res judicata. Fundamental fairness imposes some distant outer limit on res judicata, too.
    [Show full text]
  • Powers of Courts of Equity, Part III
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1915 Powers of Courts of Equity, Part III Walter Wheeler Cook Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Walter Wheeler Cook, "Powers of Courts of Equity, Part III," 15 Columbia Law Review 228 (1915). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE POWERS OF COURTS OF EQUITY. III. oiFATE~n~sOQUITABLE DECREES. To a considerable extent the legal effects' of equitable decrees have already been discussed, but there remain to be considered certain phases of the matter not directly connected with our discussion of equitable procedure. It must first be noted that it has often been denied that, in the absence of statutes, equitable decrees have legal effects comparable to the effects of judgments at law. In this connection one learned writer says: "Indeed, it may be stated broadly that a decree in chancery has not in itself (i. e., independently of what may be done under it) any legal operation whatever. If a debt, whether by simple contract or by specialty, be sued for in a court of law, and judgment recovered, the original debt is merged in the judgment, and extinguished by it, and the judgment creates a new debt of a higher nature, and of which the judgment itself is conclusive evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • DAVID RYAN ADAMS C/O PAX-AM Hollywood CA 90028
    DAVID RYAN ADAMS c/o PAX-AM Hollywood CA 90028 COMPETENCIES & SKILLS Design and construction of PAX-AM studios in Los Angeles to serve as home of self-owned-and-operated PAX-AM label and home base for all things PAX-AM. Securing of numerous Grammy nominations with zero wins as recently as Best Rock Album for eponymous 2014 LP and Best Rock Song for that record's "Gimme Something Good," including 2011's Ashes & Fire, and going back all the way to 2002 for Gold and "New York, New York" among others. Production of albums for Jenny Lewis, La Sera, Fall Out Boy, Willie Nelson, Jesse Malin, and collaborations with Norah Jones, America, Cowboy Junkies, Beth Orton and many others. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE October 2015 - First music guest on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah; Opened Jimmy Kimmel Live's week of shows airing from New York, playing (of course) "Welcome To New York" from 1989, the song for song interpretation of Taylor Swift's album of the same name. September 2015 - 1989 released to equal measures of confusion and acclaim: "Ryan Adams transforms Taylor Swift's 1989 into a melancholy masterpiece... decidedly free of irony or shtick" (AV Club); "There's nothing ironic or tossed off about Adams' interpretations. By stripping all 13 tracks of their pony-stomp synths and high-gloss studio sheen, he reveals the bones of what are essentially timeless, genre-less songs... brings two divergent artists together in smart, unexpected ways, and somehow manages to reveal the best of both of them" (Entertainment Weekly); "Adams's version of '1989' is more earnest and, in its way, sincere and sentimental than the original" (The New Yorker); "the universality of great songwriting shines through" (Billboard).
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
    Case 1:14-cv-01018-JBS-KMW Document 7 Filed 09/30/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID: <pageID> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY KEVIN HAILEY, HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 14-1018 (JBS/KMW) CITY OF CAMDEN, Defendant. OPINION APPEARANCES: Gregg L. Zeff, Esq. LAW FIRM OF GREFF L. ZEFF 100 Century Parkway, Suite 305 Mt. Laurel, N.J. 08054 Attorney for Plaintiff John C. Eastlack, Jr., Esq Wesley L. Fenza, Esq. WEIR & PARTNERS LLP The Liberty View Building 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 310 Cherry Hill, N.J. 08002 Attorney for Defendant SIMANDLE, Chief Judge: I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on Defendant City of Camden’s (hereinafter, “Defendant”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [Docket Item 5.] In this employment action, Plaintiff Kevin Hailey (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), formerly a Deputy Chief in Camden’s Fire Department, generally asserts that Defendant, his former employer, denied Plaintiff compensation Case 1:14-cv-01018-JBS-KMW Document 7 Filed 09/30/14 Page 2 of 20 PageID: <pageID> for otherwise compensable “comp” time in breach of a November 2000 memorandum providing for such payment (hereinafter, the “memo”), and in retaliation for Plaintiff’s participation in Hailey v. City of Camden, Civil Nos. 01-3967 (JBS), 06-5897 (JBS), earlier discrimination actions against Defendant. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint primarily on the grounds that the settlement agreement executed by Plaintiff and entered by the Court on November 4, 2009 in the prior actions precludes relitigation of the claims asserted in this litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support
    Case 5:06-cv-00591-F Document 14 Filed 07/13/2006 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ERIC ALLEN PATTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-06-591-F ) JUSTIN JONES, in his capacity as Director ) Oklahoma Department of Corrections; ) MARTY SIRMONS, in his capacity as ) Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary; and ) UNKNOWN EXECUTIONERS, in their ) capacities as Employees and/or Agents of ) the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, ) ) Defendants. ) MOTION TO DISMISS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Defendants Justin Jones and Marty Sirmons respectfully move the Court to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because Plaintiff has previously brought this same Eighth Amendment challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims on the merits. Plaintiff’s second attempt to argue the same claims is barred by the doctrines of issue preclusion, claim preclusion and laches.1 1 Defendants respectfully reserve the right to assert a statute of limitations defense at the summary judgment stage. Based on the Court’s rulings in Anderson v. Jones, No. CIV-05-825-F, it would appear that a statute of limitations defense in the context of these proceedings requires examination of factual issues that go beyond the pleadings. Case 5:06-cv-00591-F Document 14 Filed 07/13/2006 Page 2 of 13 BRIEF IN SUPPORT INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint seeks to enjoin Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol from being applied to Plaintiff on the grounds that the protocol, as it currently exists, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Double Jeopardy and Due Process Barry Siegal
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 59 | Issue 2 Article 10 1968 Double Jeopardy and Due Process Barry Siegal Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Barry Siegal, Double Jeopardy and Due Process, 59 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 247 (1968) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. DOUBLE JEOPARDY when such inspection will not interfere 2. The substance or text of the charge, with Department use. such as a complaint or indictment. D. Arrest reports, arrest records, supple- 3. The identity of the investigating and mentary reports and photographs will arresting unit and the length of the not be open for inspection to representatives investigation. of the press or other news media. 4. The circumstances immediately sur- E. From the time a person is arrested until the rounding an arrest, including the time proceeding has been terminated by trial or and place of arrest, resistance, pursuit, olherwise, the following types of information possession and use of weapons, and a will not be made available to the press or news description of items seized at the time media: of arrest. 1. Observations about an arrestee's charac- G. The officer in charge of an investigation ter or prior criminal record.
    [Show full text]
  • Report No. 149/20
    OEA/Ser.L/V/II. REPORT No. 149 /20 Doc. 159 1 June 2020 PETITION 829-10 Original: Spanish REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY NELSON CURIÑIR LINCOQUEO AND FAMILY CHILE Electronically approved by the Commission on June 1, 2020. Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 149 /20 , Petition 829-10. Admissibility. Nelson Curiñir Lincoqueo and Family. Chile. June 1, 2020. www.iachr.org I. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION Petitioner Jaime Madariaga De la Barra and Rafael Ferrada Henríquez Alleged victim Nelson Wladimiro Curiñir Lincoqueo and relatives1 Respondent State Chile2 Articles 8 (fair trial) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention Rights invoked on Human Rights, 3 in relation to Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) thereof II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR4 Date of filing June 3, 2010 Notification of the petition May 3, 2016 State’s first response August 19, 2016 Additional observations from September 14, 2017 the petitioner III. COMPETENCE Ratione personae Yes Ratione loci Yes Ratione temporis Yes, in the terms of section VII Yes, American Convention (instrument of ratification deposited on August 21, Ratione materiae 1990) and American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man5 (instrument of ratification of the OAS Charter deposited on June 5, 1953) IV. DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION Duplication of procedures and No international res judicata Articles 3 (juridical personality), 5 (humane treatment), 8 (fair trial) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects) thereof; and Articles Rights declared admissible I (right to life, liberty and personal security), XVII (recognition of juridical personality and civil rights), XVIII (fair trial) and XXV (protection from arbitrary arrest) of the American Declaration Exhaustion or exception to the Yes, December 3, 2009 exhaustion of remedies Timeliness of the petition Yes V.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the International Criminal Court Complementarity Principle Through a Federal Courts Lens
    ANALYZING THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT COMPLEMENTARITY PRINCIPLE THROUGH A FEDERAL COURTS LENS Ada Sheng* I. IN TRODUCTION .................................................................................. 413 II. B ACKGROUN D .................................................................................. 414 III. EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES PRIOR TO FEDERAL HABEAS ..... 421 IV. FINAL JUDGMENT RULE .................................................................... 425 V . A BSTEN TION .................................................................................... 428 V I. EXCEPTION S ....................................................................................... 430 A. Exceptions to Exhaustion of State Remedies ............................. 432 B. Exceptions to FinalJudgment Rule ........................................... 437 C. Exceptions to Abstention Doctrine ............................................ 441 D. Possible Future Groundsfor ICC Admissibility ....................... 451 V II. C ON CLUSION ..................................................................................... 452 I. INTRODUCTION The signing of the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court (ICC) was viewed by many in the international law community as a constitutional moment not unlike the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789.1 In giving birth to a new type of legal institution, the Rome Statute created a void in the ability of any existing body of law to precisely convey the nature of the ICC. The Court is neither in
    [Show full text]
  • The Gamecaucus Opinion
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons January 2008 1-17-2008 The aiD ly Gamecock, THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2008 University of South Carolina, Office oftude S nt Media Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/gamecock_2008_jan Recommended Citation University of South Carolina, Office of Student Media, "The aiD ly Gamecock, THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2008" (2008). January. 9. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/gamecock_2008_jan/9 This Newspaper is brought to you by the 2008 at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in January by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Gamecaucus Opinion..................6 Puzzles....................9 Comics....................9 The Daily Gamecock endorses Texas Rep. Ron Paul for Horoscopes..............9 Classifi ed................12 Republican presidential nomination See page 6 dailygamecock.com THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2008 VOL. 101, NO. 74 ● SINCE 1908 ROMNEY VISITS CAMPUS Fresh from win in Mich., former governor shifts Here’s a glimpse at focus to Palmetto state the GOP candidates in S.C. primary Halley Nani THE DAILY GAMECOCK Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Former Massachusetts Age: 71 Current job: U.S. Gov. Mitt Romney spoke senator from Arizona on family, military and War in Iraq: He opposes an economic issues to students immediate troop withdrawal and supporters Wednesday and opposes a timetable for night in the Russell House withdrawal. Ballroom. Abortion: He opposes “It was a big night last abortion rights except in night in Michigan,” Romney cases of rape, incest or to said. “Only a week ago we protect the life of the mother were down in polls.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LIST Is : A) the Result of a Lifelong Love of - and Dedication to - Rock and Roll
    over THE LIST is : a) The result of a lifelong love of - and dedication to - rock and roll. b) A latest stab at The Great American Bar/Party Band. c) A tip-of-the-hat to favorite rock bands and singer-songwriters (with sidetracks into New Wave, 70's One-Hit Wonders, weird Alternative gems and new faves like Ryan Adams... d.) All of the above. THE LIST Answer: d. At this point, there are almost 300 songs on THE LIST. THE LIST Directions: Find something you like, shout out a number - and we'll do our best. THE LIST band is: Tim Brickley: guitar, piano, vocals, Larry DeMyer: lead guitar, vocals Matt Price: drums Tom Waldo: bass, vocals THE LIST: 1 A Long December COUNTING CROWS 2 A Song For You LEON RUSSELL 3 Across The Universe BEATLES 4 After The Goldrush NEIL YOUNG 5 Ain’t No New Girls Around BRICKLEY/J. SCOT SHEETS 6 Ain’t Too Proud To Beg TEMPTATIONS 7 Alison ELVIS COSTELLO 8 All Along The Watchtower DYLAN/HENDRIX/DMB 9 All I Really Want To Do DYLAN 10 All I Want Is You U2 11 All Over Now ROLLING STONES 12 All You Need Is Love BEATLES 13 Allentown BILLY JOEL 14 America SIMON AND GARFUNKEL 15 American Pie DON McCLEAN 16 Amoreena ELTON JOHN 17 Androgynous THE REPLACEMENTS 18 Angel Of Harlem U2 19 Any Major Dude STEELY DAN 20 Baby, It’s You BEATLES 21 Babylon DAVID GRAY 22 Back In The USSR BEATLES 23 Beautiful Soul DANNY FLANIGAN 24 Because The Night PATTI SMITH/SPRINGSTEEN 25 Beginnings CHICAGO 26 Behind Blue Eyes THE WHO 27 Bennie and the Jets ELTON JOHN 28 Best Of My Love EAGLES 29 Bird On A Wire LEONARD COHEN 30 Blackbird BEATLES 31 Blame It On Cain ELVIS COSTELLO 32 Bluebird PAUL McCARTNEY 33 Brandy LOOKING GLASS 34 Bright Baby Blues JACKSON BROWNE 35 Brown-Eyed Girl VAN MORRISON 36 Candle In The Wind ELTON JOHN 37 Carmelita WARREN ZEVON 38 Carolina In My Mind JAMES TAYLOR 39 Casey Jones GRATEFUL DEAD 40 Centerfold J.
    [Show full text]