DOCSLIB.ORG

Rhoades V. State Clerk's Record V. 1 Dckt. 34236

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rhoades V. State Clerk's Record V. 1 Dckt. 34236 UIdaho Law Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs 1-14-2008 Rhoades v. State Clerk's Record v. 1 Dckt. 34236 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/ idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs Recommended Citation "Rhoades v. State Clerk's Record v. 1 Dckt. 34236" (2008). Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs. 1921. https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs/1921 This Court Document is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ... I . 3 LAW CLERK INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO {C(O)fPJL PAUL EZRA RHOADES Petitioner and ~f.pellant ST ATE OF IDAHO Respondent Appealedfrom the District Coun of the Seventh Judicial District ofthe State ofIdaho, iri and/or Bonneville County Hon. Gregory S. Anderson 1 District Judge Dennis Benjamin, Esq., NEVIN, BENJAMIN & McKAY, LLC P.O. Box 2772. Boise. ID 83701 Attorney for Appella11t Attorney General's Office Statehouse Mail, Room 21 O, Boise, ID 83720 .. Attomey for Respondent i C: ... "·"'I , 1 . ..,_,,, '' . .',..f ~'-.!. I' ,··· 20__ . Filed this ___ day of ' . !' I JAN I 4 2008 Clerk T .. Deputy By ---· . ',___ tmereo on-A IS bY: · IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO PAUL EZRA RHOADES, Petitioner/Appellant, VS. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. ************** CLERK'S RECORD ON APPEAL * * * * * * *·* * * * * * * Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State ofldaho, in and for the County of Bonneville HONORABLE GREGORY S. ANDERSON, District Judge. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dennis Benjamin, Esq. Attorney General's Office NEVIN, BENJAMIN & McKAY LLC Statehouse Mail, Room 210 P.O. Box 2772 700 West Jefferson Boise, ID 83701 Boise, ID 83 720 Attorney for Appellant Attorney for Respondent TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Register of Actions, printed 6/7/07 ............................................................................................................. I Petition for Post-Conviction Scientific Testing and for Appointment of Counsel, filed 6/28/02 ........................................................................................................................ 5 Motion for Summary Dismissal, filed 7/30/02 ......................................................................................... 11 Answer, filed 7 /31/02 ............................................................................................................................... 14 Petitioner's Opposition to Motion for Summary Dismissal, filed 9/9/02 ................................................. 18 Notice of Dismissal, filed 9/9/03 ........................................................................................................... 20A Minute Entry, dated 1/5/04 ....................................................................................................................... 21 Order Setting Trial, filed 1/5/04 ............................................................................................................... 22 Stipulation to Suspend Trial Schedule, Allow Specified Discovery, and Otherwise Stay Proceedings Pending Disposition in the Idaho Supreme Comt of Hoffman v. State and in the United States Supreme Court of Schriro v. Summerlin, filed 4/15/04 ..................................................................................................... 26 Order Suspending Trial Schedule, Allowing Specified Discovery, and Otherwise Staying Proceedings Pending Disposition in the Idaho Supreme Court of Hoffman v. State and in the United States Supreme Court of Schriro v. Summerlin, filed 4/15/04 ....................................................................................... 30 Motion for Appointment of Special Prosecuting Attorney, filed 8/11/04 ................................................ 33 Notice of Hearing, filed 8/l l/04 ............................................................................................................ 34A Notice of and Brief in Opposition to State's Motion for Appointment of Special Prosecuting Attorney, filed 8/17/04 ......................................................................................... 35 Minute Entry, dated 8/25/04 ..................................................................................................................... 42 Order for Appointment of Special Prosecuting Attorney, filed 8/31/04 ................................................... 44 Affidavit/ Oath of Office of L. Lamont Anderson, filed 9/1/04 .............................................................. 46 Motion to Reconsider Order for Appointment of Special Prosecuting Attorney and, Alternatively, for Permission to Appeal That Order, filed 9/9/04 ................................. 49 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notice of Hearing on Motion to Reconsider Order for Appointment of Special Prosecuting Attorney and, Alternatively, for Permission to Appeal That Order, dated 9/10/04 ..................................................................................................... 58A Notice of Appearance, filed 9/13/04 ...................................................................................................... 58D Response to Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider Order for Appointment of Special Prosecuting Attorney, filed 9/20/04 .................................................................................... 59 Reply to State's Response to Motion to Reconsider Order for Appointment of Special Prosecuting Attorney, filed l 0/4/04 .............................................................. 71 Superseding Notice of Hearing on Motion to Reconsider Order for Appointment of Special Prosecuting Attorney and, Alternatively, for Permission to Appeal That Order, filed I 0/4/04 ................................................................................ 80A Opinion, Decision, and Order on Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider Order for Appointment of Special Prosecuting Attorney and, Alternatively, for Permission to Appeal, filed 11/8/04 ........................................................................ 8 I Notice of Taking Deposition, filed 3/18/05 ........................................................................................... 92A Motion for Limited Admission, filed 3/24/05 .......................................................................................... 93 Order Granting Limited Appearance and Waiver, Nunc Pro Tune to January 5, 2004, filed 3/28/05 .............................................................................................................. 99 Motion for Limited Admission, filed 3/29/05 ........................................................................................ 100 Motion to Amend Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, filed 7/29/05 .................................................... I 06 Memorandum in Suppo1t of Motion for Amend Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, filed 7/29/05 ................................................................................................. J 09 Affidavit in Support of First Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, filed 7/29/05 ............................................................................................................................ J 13 First Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, filed 7/29/05 ......................................................... 128 Order Granting Motion to Preserve All Evidence, filed 8/l/05 .............................................................. 152 Order, filed 8/1/05 .................................................................................................................................. 154 Response to Petitioner's Motion to Amend Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, filed 8/17/05 ............................................................................................................................ 155 TABLE OF CONTENTS ii Motion to Take Judicial Notice, filed 8/17/05 ........................................................................................ 189 Minute Entry, dated 9/26/05 ................................................................................................................... 192 Order, filed 9/27/05 ................................................................................................................................ 193 Order Setting Briefing Schedule & Status Conference, filed 10/22/05 .................................................. 194 Notice of Hearing, filed l l/7/05 .......................................................................................................... 195A Minute Entry, dated l l/14/05 ................................................................................................................. 196 Notice of Time for Hearing, filed l l/l 8/05 ......................................................................................... 196A Affidavit of Greg Hampikian, PH.D., filed 12/12/05 ............................................................................. 197 Affidavit of Greg Hampikian, PH.D., filed 12/22/05 ............................................................................. 199 Order on Respondent's Motion to Take Judicial Notice, filed l/27/06 .................................................. 208 Opinion, Decision, and Order on Petitioner's Motion to Amend Petition
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______
    NO. 19-__ In the Supreme Court of the United States ________________ COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Petitioner, v. MICHEAL BACA, POLLY BACA, AND ROBERT NEMANICH, Respondents. ________________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ________________ PHILIP J. WEISER GRANT T. SULLIVAN Attorney General Assistant Solicitor General ERIC R. OLSON LEEANN MORRILL Solicitor General First Assistant Attorney Counsel of Record General Office of the Colorado Attorney General 1300 Broadway, 10th Floor Denver, Colorado 80203 [email protected] (720) 508-6000 Counsel for Petitioner QUESTIONS PRESENTED Like most States, Colorado requires its presidential electors to follow the will of its voters when casting their Electoral College ballots for President. In the 2016 Electoral College, one of Colorado’s electors violated Colorado law by attempting to cast his presidential ballot for a candidate other than the one he pledged to vote for. Colorado removed him as an elector, declined to accept his ballot, and replaced him with an alternate elector who properly cast her ballot for the winner of the State’s popular vote, consistent with Colorado law. The removed elector later sued Colorado for nominal damages. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a presidential elector who is prevented by their appointing State from casting an Electoral College ballot that violates state law lacks standing to sue their appointing State because they hold no constitutionally protected right to exercise discretion. 2. Does Article II or the Twelfth Amendment forbid a State from requiring its presidential electors to follow the State’s popular vote when casting their Electoral College ballots.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2004  the JUDICIAL COUNCIL of the NINTH CIRCUIT
    Ninth Circuit UNITED STATES COURTS 2 0 0 4 A NNU A L R EPO R T The Office of the Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the following for their contributions to the 2004 Annual Report: Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder Clerk of Court Cathy Catterson Chief Pretrial Services Officer George Walker Chief Probation Officer William Corn Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Clerk Harold Marenus Cover: Detail from wrought iron grillwork enclosing original elevator shafts at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Inside Cover: the Great Hall at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. TABLE OF CONTENTS Ninth Circuit Overview 3 Foreword, Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder 6 An Overview of the Ninth Circuit 7 The Judicial Council and Administration of the Ninth Circuit 8 Judicial Council Organizational Chart 0 Judicial Policy Advisory Groups Judicial Transitions 2 New Judges 5 New Senior Judges 6 Deceased Judges Committees of the Ninth Circuit 8 Circuit Seeks to Improve Juror Experience, Jury Management 20 Public Information and Community Outreach Committee 23 Task Force Seeks Solutions to Pro Se Caseload Issues Space and Security 26 Courts Act to Hold Down Costs for Space and Facilities 27 Seattle Welcomes New Federal Courthouse 28 Work Progresses on Other Projects 29 Courthouse Projects Under Construction, in Design 32 Plans Move Ahead for Los Angeles, San Diego Courthouses Ninth Circuit Highlights 34 Landmark Courthouse Named for Respected Judge 36 Appellate Practice Workshop on Immigration Matters 38 Ninth Circuit Conference Highlights Human Rights 4 Awards Recognize Noted Attorneys, Court Staff 43 Circuit’s Largest District Celebrates Diversity The Work of the Courts in 2004 46 Appellate Filings 49 District Court Filings 52 Bankruptcy Court Filings 55 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Report 56 Matters Before Magistrate Judges 58 Federal Public Defenders See Caseloads Rise 60 Circuit Probation Caseloads 62 Case Activations by Pretrial Services 64 District Caseloads Annual Report 2004 THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT Front row: Senior District Judge Jack D.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    Message from the Chief Justice After thirty-eight years as a judge in Idaho I will retire sometime this coming summer. Having worked in every level of the court, serving during the tenures of seven governors, and enjoying the association with the Legislature during four decades I hope to bring forward some insight on the future of the courts in Idaho. Last year the Legislature took an unprecedented step in adding four new magistrate judge positions and two new district judgeships. With the public pounding at the courthouse doors for resolution of its legal problems this was a tremendous step; together with the senior judge programs it translates into timely justice. The agenda that the Court has this year is short, but the consequences are significant for the future. To the extent funding and personnel allow, the drug courts will continue to grow. There is a consensus on the validity of these programs both in terms of human values and in terms of economy. We will renew our requests for legislation to insure the stability of the judicial retirement fund. There have been no changes in the Court of Appeals since its creation. With a caseload over three and a half times greater than when it began it operates with the same number of judges. We have initiated a study to determine what may be necessary for the long term. Recently we began analyzing the idea of moving the law library that the Court maintains. There is the potential to create something unique in the country – an apprentice program that opens the doors of the legal system to undergraduates who may learn and benefit – a system that allows advanced students at the law school to learn at the highest level.
    [Show full text]
  • CLERK of the DISTRICT COURT MANUAL Table of Contents Section
    CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT MANUAL Table of Contents Section Topic 1.0 OVERVIEW OF THE IDAHO COURT SYSTEM 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Overview of the Orientation Process 1.3 Overview of the Idaho Court System Structure and Organization 1.4 Jurisdiction of the Courts 1.5 Judicial Administration 1.6 Selection, Discipline, and Removal of Judges 1.7 What Happens in a Civil Case? 1.8 What Happens in a Criminal Case? 1.9 Anatomy of a Trial 1.10 What Happens in a Criminal Sentencing? 1.11 What Happens in a Juvenile Corrections Case? 1.12 What Happens in a Traffic Case? 1.13 What are Grand Juries? 1.14 Idaho Court’s Mission Statement 1.15 Civil Case Flowchart 2.0 FELONIES 2.1 Overview 2.2 Initiating the Action 2.3 Receipt of the Complaint 2.4 Initial Appearance Before a Magistrate 2.5 Preliminary Hearing in Magistrate Court and Filing in District Court 2.6 Arraignment in District Court and Trial Setting 2.7 Disposition 2.8 Judgments in Criminal Cases 2.9 Felony Judgments 2.10 Judgment of Conviction, Suspending Sentence, and Order of Supervised Probation: (IC § 19–2601(2)) 2.11 Judgment of Conviction and Order of Retained Jurisdiction I.C. § 19–2601(4), and Order of Commitment 2.12 Order on Motion to Revoke Probation 2.13 Grand Juries 2.14 Sex Offender Registration 2.15 A Guide to the Idaho Sex Offender Registration Program 2.16 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Drug Courts in Idaho 3.0 MISDEMEANORS 3.1 Definition of a Misdemeanor 3.2 How Initiated 3.3 Receipt of Complaint or Citation 3.4 Appearance by Defendant/Processing by Clerk 3.5 Processing by Court 3.6
    [Show full text]
  • Advocate Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar Volume 51, No
    TheAdvocate Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar Volume 51, No. 11/12 Nov/Dec 2008 This issue is sponsored by the Idaho Legal History Society Tenant Realty Advisors is pleased to announce the successful completion of the following two lease transactions: Bill Beck, working with Jones Lang LaSalle, was honored to represent Microsoft in their lease of 34,420 square feet in the Idaho Independent Bank Building in Boise, ID. The landlord was represented by D K Commercial. Bill Beck was honored to represent Simplex Grinnell in their lease of 14,910 square feet at 8783 West Hackamore Drive, Boise, ID. The landlord, Campco Partnership, was represented by Craig Wagsmith, NAI Boise. Benefit from 30+ years of market knowledge and experience. Call Bill Beck, SIOR, when planning your next move or lease renewal. Tenant Realty Advisors 950 West Bannock Street, Ste. 800 Boise, ID 83702 sBECK TENREALADCOMsWWWTENREALADCOMs0HONEs The Advocate The Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar 1(11/12), Nov/Dec 2008 FEATURE ARTICLES 13 WELCOME FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE IDAHO LEGAL HISTORY SOCIETY Deb Kristensen 14 PERSPECTIVES FROM THE PAST: ORAL HISTORIES OF IDAHO LAWYERS AND JUDGES Deb Kristensen 27 GETTING INVOLVED IN THE IDAHO LEGAL HISTORY SOCIETY’S ORAL HISTORY PROJECT Ken J. Pedersen 28 LYNCHPINS Rita Ryan 30 ACCESSING THE RECORDS OF IDAHO’S DISTINCTIVE LEGAL CULTURE Kathryn Rubinow Hodges COLUMNS 7 President’s Message, Dwight E. Baker 10 Executive Director’s Report, Diane K. Minnich 48 Federal Court Corner, Tom Murawski 50 Licensing and MCLE Compliance,
    [Show full text]
  • California Supreme Court by Gerald F
    WESTERN LEGAL HISTORY THE JOURNAL OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HISTORICAL SOCIETY VoLumE 2, NUMBER I WINTER/SPRING 1989 Western Legal Historyis published semi-annually, in spring and fall, by the Ninth judicial Circuit Historical Society, P.O. Box 2558, Pasadena, California 91102-2558, (818) 405-7059. The journal explores, analyzes, and presents the history of law, the legal profession, and the courts - particularly the federal courts - in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Western Legal History is sent to members of the Society as well as members of affiliated legal historical societies in the Ninth Circuit. Membership is open to all. Membership dues (individuals and institutions): Patron, $1,000 or more; Steward, $750-$999; Sponsor, $500-$749; Grantor, $250-$499; Sustaining, $100-$249; Advocate, $50-$99; Subscribing )non- members of the bench and bar, attorneys in practice fewer than five years, libraries, and academic institutions, $25-$49. Membership dues (law firms and corporations): Founder, $3,000 or more; Patron, $1,000-$2,999 Steward, $750-$999; Sponsor, $500-$749; Grantor, $250-$499. For information regarding membership, back issues of Western Legal History, and other Society publications and programs, please write or telephone. POSTMASTER: Please send change of address to: Western Legal History P.O. Box 2558 Pasadena, California 91102-2558. Western Legal History disclaims responsibility for statements made by authors and for accuracy of footnotes. Copyright 1988 by the Ninth judicial Circuit Historical Society. ISSN 0896-2189. The Editorial Board welcomes unsolicited manuscripts, books for review, reports on research in progress, and recommendations for the journal.
    [Show full text]
  • Passing of the Honorable Larry M. Boyle
    United States Courts for the District of Idaho Clerk of Court ♦ 550 W. Fort Street, 4th Floor, Boise Idaho ♦ (208) 334-1373 NEWS RELEASE November 30, 2017 Contact: (208) 334-1976 Stephen W. Kenyon Clerk of Court Passing of Judge Larry M. Boyle BOISE – Retired United States Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle was laid to rest on Tuesday, November 28, 2017. Judge Boyle had courageously battled Parkinson’s Disease for several years, passed away on November 23, 2018, in Boise. He was 74. Judge Boyle officially retired in January of 2017, after 31 years of distinguished service on the federal and state courts of Idaho. He was appointed a United States Magistrate Judge in 1992, reappointed in 2000, and served as a recalled magistrate judge from 2008 to 2017. He maintained chambers in Boise. Prior to his service on the federal bench, Judge Boyle was appointed by Governor Cecil D. Andrus to serve as a justice of the Idaho Supreme Court where he served from 1989 to 1992. He also served as a district judge in the Idaho Seventh Judicial District, from 1986 to 1989. He entered public service after a successful career as a trial litigator and co-founder of the firm of Hansen, Boyle, Beard & Martin in Idaho Falls. Judge Boyle was actively involved in judicial governance at all levels of the federal court system. He was appointed and twice reappointed by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Committee on the Administration of the Magistrate Judges System, serving from 1998 to 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitution of the State of Idaho
    CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO APPROVED JULY 3, 1890 ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS II DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS III LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT IV EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT V JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT VI SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS VII FINANCE AND REVENUE VIII PUBLIC INDEBTEDNESS AND SUBSIDIES IX EDUCATION AND SCHOOL LANDS X PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS XI CORPORATIONS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE XII CORPORATIONS, MUNICIPAL XIII IMMIGRATION AND LABOR XIX MILITIA XX WATER RIGHTS XXI LIVESTOCK XXII STATE BOUNDARIES XXIII COUNTY ORGANIZATION XXIV APPORTIONMENT XXV AMENDMENTS XXVI SCHEDULE AND ORDINANCE PREAMBLE We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution. ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety. SECTION 2. POLITICAL POWER INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the legislature. SECTION 3. STATE INSEPARABLE PART OF UNION. The state of Idaho is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Criminal Rule Regarding Hearing Notice
    Idaho Criminal Rule Regarding Hearing Notice Which Homer phenolates so appallingly that Maximilien catechising her Reith? Narrow-minded hisReginald third scrutinising silicifies: he plurally civilizing or hisexuviating rooter fair incandescently and pardi. If mutantand steaming, or appropriate how pyoid Douggie is Tan? usually hijacks All rules of criminal procedure is good. The notice provides a county department under Fl Stat Ann State. The idaho criminal rule regarding hearing notice of. Cessation of Activity as district Counsel. Tx answer date of whether a prosecutor has been entered by filing suit at this information and filed in these areas of fee for reconsideration is withdrawing as. The court granted the motion and Krambule met with the prosecutor and shortly thereafter he informed the court that a plea agreement had been reached. An idaho rules of hearing regarding a public censure or hearings was a group all public comment on a corrected filing a challenge to any. Bakker that idaho rules will no reasonable man could have invalidated as. We agree that, in the context of a contempt hearing, the affidavits constituting the complaint should be served at least five days before the hearing. When notice were outweighed by hearing. One level later on December 1 1996 a probation violation hearing was held. It truth not unusual that, intended the fiction of their border or interview, these persons may have interests which are substantially adverse experience or divergent from the putative corporate defendant. How much does not disclosed prior score transfer to salvage his or hearings include one idaho criminal rule regarding hearing notice that purpose for transfer to disability inactive member.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Faith and Credit: Are Oklahoma Tribal Courts Finally Getting the Respect They Deserve
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 36 Issue 2 Symposium: Native American Law Winter 2000 Full Faith and Credit: Are Oklahoma Tribal Courts Finally Getting the Respect They Deserve Shelly Grunsted Joseph H. Webster Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Shelly Grunsted, & Joseph H. Webster, Full Faith and Credit: Are Oklahoma Tribal Courts Finally Getting the Respect They Deserve , 36 Tulsa L. J. 381 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol36/iss2/6 This Native American Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Grunsted and Webster: Full Faith and Credit: Are Oklahoma Tribal Courts Finally Getting FULL FAITH AND CREDIT: ARE OKLAHOMA TRIBAL COURTS FINALLY GETTING THE RESPECT THEY DESERVE? Shelly Grunsted* INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND When the United States Constitution was being formulated and debated during the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers had a vision of a "more perfect union" and a strong nation well into the future.' The Founding Fathers were not only working on the Supreme Law of the Land, but were also framing the way the nation would be run for hundreds of years to come whether they realized it or not. When the 13 original colonies agreed that the Articles of Confederation were no longer enough to sustain the new United States of America3 something more was needed, and in May of 1787, the Constitutional Convention began.4 The fifty-five original delegates; representing 12 of the original 13 states,5 task was to change the original Articles of Confederation.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record-Senate. February 21
    '3504 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 21, of pension to Michael McNally-to the Committee on Invalid ' · By Mr. REYBURN: Petition of the National Institu_te of .Pensions. Arts and Letters, for a liberal copyright law-to the Committee By 1\Ir. MAHON: A bill (H. n. 25766) granting an increase of on Patents. pension to William Martin-to the Committee on Invalid Pen­ Also, petition of William II. Rau (relative to the copyrigllt sions. law), against unjust discrimination touching American pho­ tography-to the Committee on Patents. Also, petition of Post No. 77, Department of Pennsylvania, PETITIONS, ETC. Grand Army of the Republic, against abolition of pension Under clau e 1 of Rule XXII, the following petitions and agencies-to the Committee on Appropriations. papers were laid on t.bc Clerk's desk and referred as follows: By 1\Ir. SHEPPARD : Paper to accompany bill for relief of By the SPEAKER: Petition of >arious organizations in the Samuel G. Smith (previously referred to the Committee on States and the Di trict of Columbia, against the Littlefield bill­ War Claims)-to the Committee on Claims. to the Committee on the Judiciary. · By 1\fr. RIORDAN: Petition· of the National Institute of Arts AI o, petition of the Council of Jewish Women of San Fran­ and Letters, for the enactment of a liberal copyright bill-to cisco, again t strict legislation on immigration-to the Commit­ the Committee on Patents. tee on Immigration and Naturalization. By Mr. SCHNEEBELI : Paper to accompany bill for relief of By l\Ir. ACHESON: Petition of Washington (Pa.) Legion, David Everett-to the Committee on In>alid Pensions.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Power in the Laboratory: State Court Treatment of the One Good Plaintiff Rule
    NOTE Judicial Power in the Laboratory: State Court Treatment of the One Good Plaintiff Rule CHRIS CONRAD* This Note presents original research on whether one of the few excep- tions to Article III standing, the One Good Plaintiff Rule (the Rule), should be eliminated in the federal judiciary on practical grounds. Based on a comprehensive survey of parallel state court doctrines, this Note argues that the Rule should be retained. The One Good Plaintiff Rule emerged in the U.S. Supreme Court in the mid-1960s. It was modi®ed in 2017 by the Court's ruling in Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., which held that parties without proper Article III standing can remain in federal lawsuits as long as they seek the same form of relief as other plaintiffs in the action that do have proper standing. This ªOne Good Plaintiff Rule,º like several other Article III standing exceptions, enables parties without a redressable, cognizable injury to obtain enforceable judgments against a defendant. Allowing judges to bypass individualized standing inquiries of multiple plaintiffs under the Rule saves the federal judiciary a great deal of time. But Laroe's Rule also pushes the outer boundaries of Article III judicial power and risks imposing wrongful costsÐimproper claim preclusion, erroneous awards of attorneys' fees and court costs, and misallocation of trial rightsÐon litigants and courts. Prompted by these considerations and the rise of the connected issue of nationwide injunctions, the Rule has faced burgeoning criticism over the last few years after dodging scrutiny for close to half a century.
    [Show full text]