DOCSLIB.ORG

Trial Lawyers Section Digest a Publication of the Trial Lawyers Section of the New York State Bar Association

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trial Lawyers Section Digest a Publication of the Trial Lawyers Section of the New York State Bar Association NYSBA SUMMER 2004 | NO. 49 Trial Lawyers Section Digest A publication of the Trial Lawyers Section of the New York State Bar Association Important 2003 Decisions By Steven B. Prystowsky AUTOMOBILES—LEFT HAND TURN—SPEEDING We conclude that defendant established Plaintiff, who was making a left-hand turn directly as a matter of law that plaintiff’s failure onto the path of defendant’s oncoming vehicle, cannot to yield the right-of-way to her was the recover against defendant because plaintiff was negli- sole proximate cause of the accident. gent in failing to see that which under the circumstances Galvin v. Zacholl, 302 A.D.2d 965, 755 N.Y.S.2d 175 (4th she should have seen and in crossing in front of the Dep’t 2003). defendant’s vehicle when it was hazardous to do so. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant should have looked for approaching vehicles that might AUTOMOBILES—REAR-END COLLISION— encroach on her right-of-way even though defendant NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION admitted that she saw plaintiff’s vehicle in the distance Plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment, with its left turn blinker activated: although her vehicle was struck in the rear, since defen- dant offered a non-negligent explanation for the colli- Defendant, however, was entitled to sion sufficient to overcome the inference of negligence anticipate that plaintiff would obey the and preclude an award of summary judgment: traffic laws that required her to yield the right-of-way to defendant. Here, plaintiff met her initial burden on the motion by establishing that her vehi- The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that cle was rear-ended by the vehicle driven there was a triable issue concerning defendant violating by defendant. Defendants, however, the posted speed limit by traveling over 45 miles an raised an issue of fact by submitting the hour in a 45-miles-per-hour speed zone: deposition testimony of plaintiff in Even if defendant was traveling at a which she stated that, because she was speed of four miles per hour over the looking at the street signs she did not posted speed limit, there was no evi- see the vehicle move into the lane dence that defendant’s speed was a directly in front of her vehicle. Plaintiff proximate cause of the accident. The admitted that she slammed on her weather conditions were dry and sunny, brakes to avoid hitting that vehicle, and and the road where the accident that is when the vehicle driven by occurred was flat and straight. There defendant rear-ended her vehicle. We was no evidence that defendant could conclude that defendants thereby have avoided the collision had she been offered a non-negligent explanation for traveling at a speed of 45 miles per hour the collision, rendering partial summary as opposed to 49 miles per hour. judgment on liability and dismissal of the affirmative defenses alleging plain- * * * tiff’s culpable conduct inappropriate. Danner v. Campbell, 302 A.D.2d 859, 754 N.Y.S.2d 484 non-car rental agencies. In Motor Vehicle, the court (4th Dep’t 2003). found constructive consent, reasoning that car rental agencies “rent large numbers of vehicles to the general AUTOMOBILES—VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW public for profit.” It therefore concluded that car rental agencies should be judged on a different standard from § 388—EMPLOYEE RESTRICTED USE a “friendly individual [car] loan.” However, the Murdza Brown and Williamson, who leased van for court rejected the argument of the van’s lessors, D.L. employee, Margaret Scicchitano, is not liable to plaintiff, Peterson Trust and PHH Fleet America Corporation, who was injured when the van, operated by that they are entitled to benefit from B & W’s employee Scicchitano’s boyfriend, struck him because B & W’s handbook restriction: employee manual restricted use of the leased vehicle to employees and spouses rebutting the presumption of Unlike B & W’s role as a bailor-employ- permissive use under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388: er, however, PHH and the Trust are lessors of the van and therefore fall Here, by permitting an employee’s use squarely within the public policy con- of its vehicle, B & W stands in a very siderations discussed in Motor Vehicle. different position than a car rental As such, they may not benefit as a mat- agency, which “rent[s] large number of ter of law from restrictions adopted by vehicles to the general public for prof- their lessee that they themselves could it.” While it is foreseeable that a rented not use to limit their ownership liability vehicle would come into the hands of under section 388.] any number of operators by the very nature of the quasi-ownership relation- ship created by a lease, the bailment of AUTOMOBILES—VTL § 388—PASSENGER/ a vehicle to an employee spawns a OWNER—SUIT AGAINST CO-OWNERS markedly different relationship with its Injured passenger, who was also statutory owner of own set of expectations. Indeed, an at- vehicle under VTL § 128 [lessee over 30 days], is not will employment relationship and the barred from suing her co-owners, the lessors, Hendel frequent contact between an employee and First Union Auto Finance, Inc.: and employer demand compliance with Assuming without deciding that plain- restrictions on vehicle operation placed tiff is a statutory owner, we hold that on the employee. As a result of this she is not precluded from bringing a relationship, it is reasonable for an section 388 claim against other statuto- employer to expect employees to com- ry owners. Focusing on the language of ply with its use restrictions. Thus, the statute, there is no limitation of the allowing an employer explicitly to class of possible plaintiffs to non-own- restrict those who may operate its vehi- ers. The statute simply says “every cles while simultaneously restricting its owner” shall be liable for injuries “to liability as an owner under Vehicle and person or property” resulting from the Traffic Law § 388, encourages careful negligence of any person using the selection of operators—the curative vehicle with the permission of such policy underpinning of the section. owner. Defendants Hendel and First Even if Scicchitano had consented to Union are owners who do not dispute Zimmerman’s use of the van, B & W’s that they permitted the person whose employee handbook explicitly restrict- alleged negligence caused plaintiff’s ed those who may operate its vehicles injury to drive their vehicle. Thus, and thereby rebutted the presumption regardless of whether plaintiff is also of liability under Vehicle and Traffic an “owner,” the fact that her husband Law § 388 (1). operated the vehicle with the consent of Murdza v. Zimmerman, 99 N.Y.2d 375, 756 N.Y.S.2d 505 Hendel and First Union is sufficient to (2003). bring her within the protection of the statute. [EDITOR’S NOTE: As a matter of public policy, the court refused to extend its holding in Motor Vehicle Hassan v. Montuori, 99 N.Y.2d 348, 756 N.Y.S.2d 126 Accid. Indem. Corp. v. Continental National American (2003), rev’g 291 A.D.2d 375, 737 N.Y.S.2d 625 (2d Dep’t Group Co., 35 N.Y.2d 260, 360 N.Y.S.2d 859 (1974), to 2002). 2 NYSBA Trial Lawyers Section Digest | Summer 2004 | No. 49 CONFLICT OF LAWS—CONN PLAINTIFF— in New York; the car’s ownership by a NJ DEFENDANT—NY LOCUS—CHARITABLE New York domiciliary who was a pas- IMMUNITY LAW senger, the car’s operation by a New York domiciliary who had a New York Connecticut resident attending college in New driver’s license and was killed in the Jersey who was injured at a rugby match in New York accident when the car rolled over, and was barred by New Jersey charitable immunity statute the presence of two passengers in the from suing New Jersey’s Seton Hall University, which car who are New York domiciliaries was charged with negligent supervision. and were injured in the accident. Gilbert v. Seton Hall University, 332 F.3d 105, (2d Cir. Appellants manufacturer and distribu- 2003). tor are Delaware corporations that have their principal places of business in [EDITOR’S NOTE: The court applied the third Neumeier Ohio and Tennessee and conduct busi- [v. Kuehner, 31 N.Y.2d 121, 335 N.Y.S.2d 64 (1972)] rule ness throughout the world; the tire was because the parties resided in different jurisdictions and apparently manufactured in Georgia. the allegedly tortious conduct occurred in a third juris- Contacts with Quebec are the occur- diction. Under the third Neumeier rule, the court applies rence of the accident and the initial the law of the jurisdiction where the injury occurred treatment of injuries there. The IAS unless it can “be shown that displacing that normally court correctly held that New York‘s applicable rule will advance the relevant substantive interest in having its products liability law purposes without impairing the smooth working of and negligence laws applied to com- the multistate system or producing great uncertainty for pensate its domiciliaries for injuries litigants.” Three factors influenced the court to reject sustained by a defective product sold in the third Neumeier rule: New York is greater than Quebec’s One factor was that the plaintiffs had interest in having its no-fault law uni- benefited from New Jersey’s law of formly applied so as to prohibit com- charitable immunity and the State pensation to United States domicil- therefore had a rightful interest in hold- iaries. ing them to its burdens as well. Mann v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation
    THE FELLOWS OF THE AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION 2015-2016 2015-2016 Fellows Officers: Chair Hon. Cara Lee T. Neville (Ret.) Chair – Elect Michael H. Byowitz Secretary Rew R. Goodenow Immediate Past Chair Kathleen J. Hopkins The Fellows is an honorary organization of attorneys, judges and law professors whose pro- fessional, public and private careers have demonstrated outstanding dedication to the welfare of their communities and to the highest principles of the legal profession. Established in 1955, The Fellows encourage and support the research program of the American Bar Foundation. The American Bar Foundation works to advance justice through ground-breaking, independ- ent research on law, legal institutions, and legal processes. Current research covers meaning- ful topics including legal needs of ordinary Americans and how justice gaps can be filled; the changing nature of legal careers and opportunities for more diversity within the profession; social and political costs of mass incarceration; how juries actually decide cases; the ability of China’s criminal defense lawyers to protect basic legal freedoms; and, how to better prepare for end of life decision-making. With the generous support of those listed on the pages that follow, the American Bar Founda- tion is able to truly impact the very foundation of democracy and the future of our global soci- ety. The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, 4th Floor Chicago, IL 60611-4403 (800) 292-5065 Fax: (312) 564-8910 [email protected] www.americanbarfoundation.org/fellows OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE Rew R. Goodenow, Secretary AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION Parsons Behle & Latimer David A.
    [Show full text]
  • One Man's Token Is Another Woman's Breakthrough - the Appointment of the First Women Federal Judges
    Volume 49 Issue 3 Article 2 2004 One Man's Token is Another Woman's Breakthrough - The Appointment of the First Women Federal Judges Mary L. Clark Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Mary L. Clark, One Man's Token is Another Woman's Breakthrough - The Appointment of the First Women Federal Judges, 49 Vill. L. Rev. 487 (2004). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol49/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Clark: One Man's Token is Another Woman's Breakthrough - The Appointment 2004] Article ONE MAN'S TOKEN IS ANOTHER WOMAN'S BREAKTHROUGH? THE APPOINTMENT OF THE FIRST WOMEN FEDERAL JUDGES MARY L. CLARK* I. INTRODUCTION NIO women served as Article III judges in the first one hundred and fifty years of the American republic.' It was not until Franklin Del- ano Roosevelt named Florence Ellinwood Allen to the U.S. Court of Ap- peals in 1934 that women were included within the ranks of the federal 2 judiciary. This Article examines the appointment of the first women federal judges, addressing why and how presidents from Roosevelt through Ford named women to the bench, how the backgrounds and experiences of these nontraditional appointees compared with those of their male col- leagues and, ultimately, why it matters that women have been, and con- tinue to be, appointed.
    [Show full text]
  • Miriam G. Cederbaum.2.2
    IN MEMORIAM: JUDGE MIRIAM GOLDMAN CEDARBAUM Sonia Sotomayor * Miriam Cedarbaum had been a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for six years when I joined that court in 1992. I count myself as lucky for so many reasons, but getting to serve alongside and learn from Judge Cedarbaum falls high on that list. Judge Cedarbaum mentored me in my first few years on the bench and served as a steady source of strength and wisdom in the years after. This relationship began when she stopped by my office during my first week on the bench, a tradition she followed with every new judge on her court. It continued afterwards because our offices were on the same floor of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, just around the corner, and we kept the same arrangement when renovations moved us to the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse. I learned much from Judge Cedarbaum. In this space, I want to record those lessons so that other judges, those not fortunate enough to be paid a visit by her during their first week on the bench, can learn from her still. Be careful. A district court judge labors in the boiler room of our judicial system. Alarms constantly sound, work never stops, and thanks rarely materialize. While toiling away, a district court judge may be tempted to cut corners, to make the job just a little easier. Not Judge Cedarbaum. Read any one of Judge Cedarbaum’s decisions and her attention to the facts and mastery of the legal issues leap off the page.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 10-324: United States V. Praylow
    No. 10-324 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. RORY PRAYLOW ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NEAL KUMAR KATYAL Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Section 924(c) of Title 18 requires specified manda- tory consecutive sentences for committing certain weap- ons offenses in connection with “any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime,” “[e]xcept to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law.” The question presented is whether the “except” clause permits a district court not to impose a manda- tory minimum consecutive sentence under Section 924(c) if the defendant is also subject to a greater mandatory minimum sentence on a different count of conviction charging a different offense involving different conduct. (I) In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 10-324 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. RORY PRAYLOW ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI The Acting Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States of America, respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in this case. OPINION BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (App., infra, 1a- 4a) is unreported but is available at 2010 WL 2340169.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the SECOND CIRCUIT
    Case: 11-1111 Document: 90-1 Page: 1 02/14/2013 845599 24 11-1111-cv Gatt Commc’ns, Inc. v. PMC Associates, L.L.C. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2011 (Argued: February 6, 2012 Decided: February 14, 2013) Docket No. 11-1111-cv GATT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, –v.– PMC ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., DBA PMC ASSOCIATES, PMC ASSOCIATES, INC., DBA PMC ASSOCIATES, PHILLIP M. CASCIANO ASSOCIATES, INC., DBA PMC ASSOCIATES, PHILLIP M. CASCIANO, BRYAN CASCIANO, THOMAS WINELAND, VESEL RADIVIC, Defendants-Appellees, JOHN DOE, HENRY HOE, RICHARD ROE, Defendants. Before: WESLEY, CARNEY, Circuit Judges, and CEDARBAUM, District Judge.* Appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Deborah A. Batts, Judge), granting Defendants- Appellees’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint. We conclude that Plaintiff- Appellant Gatt Communications, Inc., lacks antitrust standing to bring its claims * The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Case: 11-1111 Document: 90-1 Page: 2 02/14/2013 845599 24 under the Sherman Act and the Donnelly Act. We also hold that Gatt’s common law claims were properly dismissed as a matter of law. AFFIRMED. KAREN F. NEUWIRTH, Law Office of Martin S. Rapaport, New York, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant Gatt Communications, Inc. MICHAEL J. HAHN (Kristin A. Muir, on the brief), Lowenstein Sandler PC, New York, New York, for Defendants-Appellees Philip M. Casciano Associates, Inc. DBA PMC Associates, Philip Casciano, Bryan Casciano, and Vesel Ramovic.1 DANIEL E.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: a Retrospective (1990-2000)
    The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: A Retrospective (1990-2000) The New York County Lawyers’ Association Committee On The Federal Courts December 2002 This report was approved by the Board of Directors of the New York County Lawyers’ Association at its regular meeting on January 13, 2003. Copyright December 2002 New York County Lawyers’ Association 14 Vesey Street, New York, NY 10007 phone: (212) 267-6646; fax: (212) 406-9252 Additional copies may be obtained on-line at the NYCLA website: www.nycla.org TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COURT (1789 TO 1989)................................................................2 THE EDWARD WEINFELD AWARD..........................................................................................7 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MARY JO WHITE (1993-2001): FIRST WOMAN TO LEAD THE OFFICE....................................................................................7 THE COMPOSITION OF TODAY’S COURT ..............................................................................8 Chief Judges: Transition and Continuity ........................................................................... 8 THE COURT’S CHANGING DOCKET ......................................................................................10 NOTABLE CASES, TRIALS, AND DECISIONS.......................................................................11 Antitrust
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Clerkship Manual
    Judicial Clerkship Manual Last updated January 15, 2020 Table of Contents I. DECIDING IF YOU SHOULD CLERK ................................................................................... 1 A. Career Considerations ......................................................................................................... 2 B. Financial Implications ......................................................................................................... 2 C. Term versus Career Clerks.................................................................................................. 3 II. CHOOSING WHERE TO APPLY ........................................................................................... 3 A. Geographic Considerations ................................................................................................. 4 B. Trial Courts versus Appellate Courts .................................................................................. 4 1. Trial Court Clerkships .................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Appellate Court Clerkships .......................................................................................................................... 5 C. Federal Courts versus State Courts ..................................................................................... 5 1. Federal Courts ..................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Justice Press Release
    Department of Justice Press Release For Immediate Release United States Attorney's Office October 5, 2010 Southern District of New York Contact: (212) 637-2600 Faisal Shahzad Sentenced in Manhattan Federal Court to Life in Prison for Attempted Car Bombing in Times Square PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, JANICE K. FEDARCYK, the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), and RAYMOND W. KELLY, the Police Commissioner of the City of New York ("NYPD"), announced the sentencing today of FAISAL SHAHZAD to life in prison for his attempt to detonate a car bomb in Times Square on the evening of May 1, 2010. SHAHZAD was sentenced in Manhattan federal court by U.S. District Judge MIRIAM GOLDMAN CEDARBAUM. SHAHZAD, 31, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, was taken into custody at John F. Kennedy International Airport ("JFK Airport") on May 3, 2010, after he was identified by the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Customs and Border Protection while attempting to leave the United States on a commercial flight to Dubai. SHAHZAD was then charged in a five-count criminal Complaint. On May 18, 2010, he was presented in Manhattan federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge JAMES C. FRANCIS IV. On June 17, 2010, SHAHZAD was indicted in the Southern District of New York for ten offenses relating to the May 1, 2010, attempted bombing. Based on the offenses alleged in the Indictment, SHAHZAD faced a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
    [Show full text]
  • Clues of Integrity in the Legal Reasoning Process: How Judicial Biographies Shed Light on the Rule of Law
    SMU Law Review Volume 67 Issue 4 Article 8 2014 Clues of Integrity in the Legal Reasoning Process: How Judicial Biographies Shed Light on the Rule of Law Harvey Rishikof National War College, [email protected] Bernard Horowitz American Bar Association, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Harvey Rishikof & Bernard Horowitz, Clues of Integrity in the Legal Reasoning Process: How Judicial Biographies Shed Light on the Rule of Law, 67 SMU L. REV. 763 (2014) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol67/iss4/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. CLUES OF INTEGRITY IN THE LEGAL REASONING PROCESS: HOW JUDICIAL BIOGRAPHIES SHED LIGHT ON THE RULE OF LAW Harvey Rishikof* Bernard Horowitz** NE of the fascinating dimensions of historiography is the ten- dency of genres of historical scholarship to come in and out of Ofashion. In the 1940s, when Mark DeWolfe Howe began his au- thorized biography of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, not many scholars could expect to penetrate the circles of family members, executors, law clerks, and disciples that restricted access to information about “their” judge. Moreover, few collections of the private papers of judges were available, and even fewer collections of their internal court papers. There were many reasons not to write judicial biography, and the major biogra- phies of Supreme Court Justices could have been counted on the fingers of one hand.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation
    THE FELLOWS OF THE AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION 2011 Chair 2011-2012 Doreen D. Dodson Chair – Elect Myles V. Lynk Secretary Don Slesnick The Fellows is an honorary organization of attorneys, judges and law professors whose profes- sional, public and private careers have demonstrated outstanding dedication to the welfare of their communities and to the highest principles of the legal profession. Established in 1955, The Fellows encourage and support the research program of the American Bar Foundation. The American Bar Foundation works to advance justice through research on law, legal institutions, and legal processes. Current research covers such topics as end-of-life decision making, the value of early childhood education, how lawyers in public interest law organizations conceptualize and pursue their goals, what people think of the civil justice system against the backdrop of the politics of tort reform and the changes in the law that have resulted from the tort reform movement, and the factors that play a psychological role in laypersons’ decisions about justice and responsibility. The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, 4th Floor Chicago, IL 60611 (800) 292-5065 Fax: (312) 988-6579 [email protected] www.americanbarfoundation.org OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE OFFICERS OF THE FELLOWS, CONT’D AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION Don Slesnick, Secretary William C. Hubbard, President Slesnick & Casey LLP Hon. Bernice B. Donald, Vice President 2701 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 200 David A. Collins, Treasurer Coral Gables, FL 33134-6041 Ellen J. Flannery, Secretary Office: (305) 448-5672 Robert L. Nelson, ABF Director Fax: (305) 448-5685 Susan Frelich Appleton [email protected] Mortimer M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Way Pavers: Eleven Supreme Court-Worthy Women
    Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 7-2018 The Way Pavers: Eleven Supreme Court-worthy Women Meg Penrose Texas A&M University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Judges Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Meg Penrose, The Way Pavers: Eleven Supreme Court-worthy Women, Harv. J.L. & Gender Online 1 (2018). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/1261 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE WAY PAVERS: ELEVEN SUPREME COURT-WORTHY WOMEN * MEG PENROSE Introduction Four women have served as associate justices on the United States Supreme Court. Since the Court’s inception in 1789, more than 160 individuals have been nominated to serve as Supreme Court justices.1 Five nominees, or roughly 3 percent, have been women.2 To help put this gender dearth in perspective, more men named “Samuel” have served as Supreme Court justices than women.3 Thirteen U.S. presidents have each nominated more people to the Supreme Court than the total number of women that have served on the Court.4 Finally, there are currently as many Catholics serving on the Supreme Court as the number of women confirmed in the Court’s entire history.5 Women, once thought of as “one-at-a-time-curiosities” on the bench, now constitute nearly one-third of all state and federal judges.6 They occupy the highest posts on state supreme courts and can be found, in similar numbers, at the trial and appellate * Meg Penrose is a full Professor at Texas A&M University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • * Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sitting by Designation
    06-1867-cv MLB Properties v. Salvino 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 - - - - - - 4 August Term, 2006 5 (Argued: January 23, 2007 Decided: September 12,2008) 6 Docket No. 06-1867-cv 7 _________________________________________________________ 8 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PROPERTIES, INC., 9 Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant- 10 Appellee, 11 - v. - 12 SALVINO, INC., 13 Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant. 14 _________________________________________________________ 15 Before: KEARSE and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges, and CEDARBAUM, 16 District Judge*. 17 Appeal by defendant from so much of a judgment of the 18 United States District Court for the Southern District of New 19 York, Richard Conway Casey, Judge, as dismissed its counterclaim 20 alleging that the organization and activities of plaintiff as the 21 exclusive licensing agent for Major League Baseball intellectual 22 property constitute a per se or "quick-look" violation of the 23 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. See 420 F.Supp.2d 212 (2005). 24 Affirmed. * Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 Judge Sotomayor concurs, in a separate opinion. 2 JAMES T. McKEOWN, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (G. 3 Michael Halfenger, Foley & Lardner, 4 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Gary A. Adler, 5 Bingham McCutchen, New York,New York, 6 on the brief), for Plaintiff- 7 Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellee. 8 MAXWELL M. BLECHER, Los Angeles,California 9 (John E. Andrews, Blecher & Collins, 10 Los Angeles, California, on the 11 brief),for Defendant-Counterclaimant- 12 Appellant. 13 KEARSE, Circuit Judge: 14 Defendant Salvino, Inc. ("Salvino"), appeals from so much 15 of a final judgment of the United States District Court for the 16 Southern District of New York, Richard Conway Casey, Judge, as 17 dismissed its counterclaims alleging that the organization and 18 activities of plaintiff Major League Baseball Properties, Inc.
    [Show full text]