DOCSLIB.ORG

2006-2007.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2006-2007.Pdf University of Virginia Law School Foundation School Law Foundation Virginia of University Report 2006–2007 Annual Non-Profit Organization U.S. Postage Paid University of Virginia Permit No. 232 Charlottesville, VA University of Virginia Law School Foundation 580 Massie Road School of Law Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1738 www.law.virginia.edu/alumni Annual Report 2006–2007 Law School Foundation Annual Report 2006 – 2007 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Dean’s Message 2 SCHOOL OF LAW Leadership Report 4 Statement of Accounts 6 Summary of Contributions & Expenditures 11 Dean’s Council Life Members 12 Associate Members 13 100% Participation Program 15 Reunion Gifts 18 Estate Gifts 20 Deferred Gifts 21 Regional Summary 24 Regions with the Highest Percent Participation 26 Classes with the Highest Percent Participation 27 Class Participation 28 Non-Alumni Contributors: Friends, Faculty, and Staff 82 Firms, Foundations, and Corporations 85 Matching Gifts 87 Gifts-in-Kind to the Arthur J. Morris Law Library 88 In Memoriam 88 Annual Giving 1998-2007 89 Unrestricted Annual Giving 1998-2007 89 Law School Foundation Board of Trustees 90 Law School Alumni Council 91 Law School Foundation 92 2 University of Virginia School of Law Dean’s Message FOR THE SECOND YEAR IN A ROW, MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF OUR GRADUATES made gifts to the Law School. That record of alumni support is unmatched by any other law school, public or private. For Virginia to lead the way in alumni participation is a remarkable achievement. Historically, graduates of public universities often assumed that they “gave at the offi ce” when they paid taxes. Today, of course, the Law School is fi nancially self-suffi cient and receives no state funds. We rely primarily on tuition and secondarily, but crucially, on private giving. In the pages that follow, you will see what your gifts accomplish. They allow us to compete nationally for leading faculty, to provide much-needed scholarship support for deserving students, and to sponsor the huge variety of events, activities, projects, and publications that make the Law School such a vibrant and exciting place. In short, your generosity is indispensable. All of us who are privileged to study and work in Charlottesville are deeply grateful. John C. Jeffries, Jr. ’73, Dean Annual Report 2006 – 2007 3 4 University of Virginia School of Law Leadership Report July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 WE ARE PLEASED TO REPORT THAT IN THIS FIRST YEAR OF THE CAPITAL CAMPAIGN, more alumni than ever made gifts to the Law School. Once again, annual giving participation surpassed fi fty percent—an achievement no other law school can claim. Your gifts make possible the vibrant and diverse community that is Virginia Law, but monetary donations are not the sole means of supporting the Law School. Alumni engagement is at an all-time high. Alumni serve as members of the Business Advisory Council, as reunion managers, as hosts for alumni events in their cities. Alumni visit Charlottesville to share their professional experiences, present books they have written, or talk about trials they have conducted. Alumni return to conduct job interviews with current students and judge fi rst-year oral arguments. Annual Report 2006 – 2007 5 We salute you, the friends and graduates of Virginia Law, ALUMNI ASSOCIATION and wish to share here a summary of the Law School’s health and This year, Law School alumni, faculty, and friends gathered strength as of June 30, 2007, the close of the fi scal year: in Richmond, Washington, Atlanta, San Francisco, Birmingham, Dallas, Houston, New York City, Chicago, and Northern Virginia. LAW SCHOOL FOUNDATION Dean Jeffries spent time with alumni at the Orrick offi ces in • The market value of Foundation assets is $305.5 million, San Francisco. He met with Dallas alumni at the Dallas Petroleum and the University holds an additional $44.5 million in Club, and with Houston alumni at the home of Mike Caddell ’79 funds designated for the Law School. The combined value and Cynthia Chapman. Tri-state alumni were treated to an of these assets for the benefi t of the Law School exceeds enlightening address by Tom Ostertag ’81, General Counsel for $350 million. Major League Baseball, at the annual New York City luncheon. • Private gift support for the Law School, including annual The highlight of the year was once again Law Alumni Weekend, giving, bequests, and special gifts, totaled $13,815,235. when nearly 1,000 alumni and their guests returned to • Membership in the Dean's Council, the Law School's highest Charlottesville for Reunions in May. donor recognition group, continues to grow, with more than We thank you, friends and fellow graduates, for your contin- 400 members. ued support, your work, and your dedication to the Law School. You are the legacy that is the University of Virginia School of Law. ANNUAL GIVING • The 42nd annual giving campaign raised a record $9.8 million, of which $4.5 million was unrestricted. • A record 7,643 donors contributed to the annual giving Michael J. Horvitz ’75 campaign, crossing fi fty percent alumni participation for Chair, Law School Foundation Board of Trustees the second straight year. William B. Fryer ’74 • 90% of the Class of 2007 participated in “Believe,” their President, Law School Alumni Association graduation gift campaign, signaling even greater support H. Sadler Poe ’70 for annual giving in the years ahead. Chair, 2006-2008 National Appeals Committee 6 University of Virginia School of Law Statement of Accounts July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 2006-2007 June 30, 2007 2006-2007 June 30, 2007 CONTRIBUTIONS MARKET VALUE CONTRIBUTIONS MARKET VALUE I. Unrestricted Funds III. Professorships Current Use $ 3,412,489 $ 3,581,792 John S. Battle $ – $ 325,246 Arnold R. Boyd – 867,860 Thomas F. Bergin Teaching 500 772,732 E. Fontaine Broun – 1,238,777 Albert C. BeVier Research – 451,974 Hardy Cross Dillard – 303,754 Barron F. Black Research – 611,073 Dana Drake – 776,278 Perre Bowen Fund – 2,893,296 Ernest L. Folk III 200 143,945 T. Munford Boyd – 815,004 General Endowment 210,020 9,199,414 Brokaw Professorship in Corporate Law – 1,240,056 General Fund 25,040 3,186,640 Percy Brown, Jr. – 481,338 Colonel Joseph M. Hartfi eld Memorial – 200,204 Walter L. Brown – 806,766 D. Peck Hill – 328,103 The Honorable Albert V. Bryan, Jr. ’50 10,400 355,585 J. Wilton Hope – 203,641 Caddell & Chapman Research – 443,699 Lawrence W. I’Anson – 75,314 Daniel Caplin – 569,557 Henry C. Little – 935,007 Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Research 3,976 811,968 William H.D. Rossiter – 5,341,453 Nicholas E. Chimicles Research in J. Edward Smith – 430,303 Business Law & Regulation – 631,368 Randall S. Strange – 176,694 Class of 1941 Research – 500,353 Textbook Royalties – 819 Class of 1948 Scholarly Research – 643,674 John William Waltz – 458,086 Class of 1957 Research 247,592 1,398,965 Leigh D. Williams – 767,513 Class of 1962 – 1,514,703 George A. and Elisabeth Dent Wilson – 16,738,463 Class of 1963 Research 1,750 826,482 Stephen Clark Woodroe – 1,313,971 Class of 1966 Research – 791,656 TOTAL UNRESTRICTED FUNDS $ 3,647,749 $ 46,268,031 Edwin S. Cohen Distinguished in Law and Taxation – 1,616,840 Hardy Cross Dillard / Class of 1969 100 632,603 Armistead M. Dobie – 275,105 II. Unrestricted Reunion Funds Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation – 548,777 John A. Ewald, Jr. Distinguished – 1,997,583 Class of 1962 $ 120,234 $ 120,009 Horace W. Goldsmith Research – 3,547,232 Class of 1987 104,231 113,220 Charles O. Gregory 500 854,030 Class of 1992 44,233 44,300 David A. Harrison III Faculty Development Fund 1,821,257 5,848,939 Class of 1997 28,492 28,427 David and Mary Harrison Distinguished – 59,853,900 Class of 2002 19,458 19,378 Joseph M. Hartfi eld Memorial (by Watson Foundation) – 409,693 TOTAL UNRESTRICTED REUNION FUNDS $ 316,648 $ 325,334 Michael J. and Jane R. Horvitz Distinguished 100,000 1,384,638 Annual Report 2006 – 2007 7 2006-2007 June 30, 2007 2006-2007 June 30, 2007 CONTRIBUTIONS MARKET VALUE CONTRIBUTIONS MARKET VALUE Edward F. Howrey Research $ – $ 766,178 A. Stewart Kerr $ – $ 50 Hunton & Williams Research – 665,163 Monroe Leigh ASIL Fellowship 2,500 122,900 David H. Ibbeken ’71 Research 65,600 885,912 James A. Newell 1,500 1,500 E. James Kelly, Jr. - Class of 1965 Research – 763,421 Scott R. Owens Memorial Reserve – 52,338 Edward J. Kelly III – 18,328 James M. Rinaca ’76 Memorial 29,450 29,525 Inez L. Kimmel Young Teachers Fund 63,850 1,059,024 School of Law General 34,222 197,223 Arnold H. Leon 48,875 1,158,707 Richard Silver 10,000 10,000 James Madison 1,500 619,296 Whitehead Memorial 1,000 2,109 James Madison Distinguished – 2,885,772 Womble Carlyle 8,000 1 Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished 39,929 1,252,701 David Lurton Massee, Jr. – 2,419,767 ENDOWED SCHOLARSHIPS Samuel H. McCoy II – 566,527 Kent E. Agness $ 900 $ 2,946 Elizabeth D. & Richard A. Merrill Research 1,507 768,643 Hawthorne D. Battle – 66,119 John Barbee Minor Distinguished – 2,888,702 Candace K. and Frederick W. Beinecke – 217,132 James Monroe Distinguished – 2,918,579 Juliet R. Belknap / McAlister Marshall – 180,970 Roy L. & Rosamond Woodruff Morgan – 490,642 Robert K. Bellamy 9,735 236,406 William L. Matheson and Robert M. Morgenthau Senator Leroy Bendheim – 415,309 Distinguished – 3,924,515 Black Law Alumni 1,405 14,948 Blaine T.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Empirical Study of the Ideologies of Judges on the Unites States
    JUDGED BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE IDEOLOGIES OF JUDGES ON THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Corey Rayburn Yung* Abstract: Although there has been an explosion of empirical legal schol- arship about the federal judiciary, with a particular focus on judicial ide- ology, the question remains: how do we know what the ideology of a judge actually is? For federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court, legal aca- demics and political scientists have offered only crude proxies to identify the ideologies of judges. This Article attempts to cure this deficiency in empirical research about the federal courts by introducing a new tech- nique for measuring the ideology of judges based upon judicial behavior in the U.S. courts of appeals. This study measures ideology, not by subjec- tively coding the ideological direction of case outcomes, but by determin- ing the degree to which federal appellate judges agree and disagree with their liberal and conservative colleagues at both the appellate and district court levels. Further, through regression analysis, several important find- ings related to the Ideology Scores emerge. First, the Ideology Scores in this Article offer substantial improvements in predicting civil rights case outcomes over the leading measures of ideology. Second, there were very different levels and heterogeneity of ideology among the judges on the studied circuits. Third, the data did not support the conventional wisdom that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appointed uniquely ideological judges. Fourth, in general judges appointed by Republican presidents were more ideological than those appointed by Democratic presidents.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Courts of the United States
    66 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL of Decisions, the Librarian, the Marshal, Court Term The term of the Court the Director of Budget and Personnel, begins on the first Monday in October the Court Counsel, the Curator, the and lasts until the first Monday in Director of Data Systems, and the Public October of the next year. Approximately Information Officer. 8,000 cases are filed with the Court in Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate the course of a term, and some 1,000 jurisdiction has been conferred upon the applications of various kinds are filed Supreme Court by various statutes under each year that can be acted upon by a the authority given Congress by the single Justice. Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling Access to Facilities The Supreme Court jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 be found in 28 U.S.C. 1251, 1253, p.m., Monday through Friday, except on 1254, 1257–1259, and various special Federal holidays. Unless the Court or statutes. Congress has no authority to Chief Justice orders otherwise, the change the original jurisdiction of this Clerk’s office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 Court. p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Rulemaking Power Congress has from Federal legal holidays. The library is time to time conferred upon the open to members of the bar of the Court, Supreme Court power to prescribe rules attorneys for the various Federal of procedure to be followed by the departments and agencies, and Members lower courts of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Abundant Splits and Other Significant Bankruptcy Decisions
    Abundant Splits and Other Significant Bankruptcy Decisions Inns of Court Houston, Texas October 25, 2016 Bill Rochelle • Editor-at-Large American Bankruptcy Institute [email protected] • 703. 894.5909 © 2016 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 600 • Alexandria, VA 22014 • www.abi.org American Bankruptcy Institute • 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 600 • Alexandria, VA 22314 1 www.abi.org Table of Contents Supreme Court ........................................................................................................................ 4 Last Term ..........................................................................................................................................5 Supreme Court Invalidates Puerto Rico’s Local Law for Municipal Debt Adjustment .................6 Supreme Court: Misrepresentation Not Required for ‘Actual Fraud’ Nondischargeability ..........9 Supreme Court Temporarily Ducks Case on Individuals’ Right to Sue .......................................13 Next Term ........................................................................................................................................17 Supreme Court Will Review Jevic to Rule on Structured Dismissals and Gift Plans ..................18 Supreme Court to Resolve Circuit Splits on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ...................20 Reorganization ...................................................................................................................... 23 Sales ..................................................................................................................................................24
    [Show full text]
  • What Judges Want and Need: User-Friendly Foundations for Effective Judicial Education
    Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 2015 Issue 1 Article 3 2015 What Judges Want and Need: User-Friendly Foundations for Effective Judicial Education Duane Benton Jennifer A.L. Sheldon-Sherman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, and the Legal Education Commons Recommended Citation Duane Benton and Jennifer A.L. Sheldon-Sherman, What Judges Want and Need: User-Friendly Foundations for Effective Judicial Education, 2015 J. Disp. Resol. (2015) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2015/iss1/3 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Dispute Resolution by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Benton and Sheldon-Sherman: What Judges Want and Need: User-Friendly Foundations for Effectiv What Judges Want and Need: User- Friendly Foundations for Effective Judicial Education DUANE BENTON* JENNIFER A.L. SHELDON-SHERMAN** INTRODUCTION Over the past fifty years, judicial education has become “integral and essen- tial” to judicial systems.1 Most states have judicial education divisions or research organizations.2 Many also have significant funding for judicial education.3 Scholars increasingly study judicial education programming. Dozens of organiza- tions now design, evaluate, and implement judicial education.4 Despite these advancements, it is not clear how closely judicial education is grounded in the needs and preferences of judges. This article evaluates the connection between judicial education and judges’ needs and preferences.
    [Show full text]
  • Burger-Blackmun Relationship: Lessons for Collegiality from the Blackmun Papers, The
    Missouri Law Review Volume 70 Issue 4 Fall 2005 Article 4 Fall 2005 Burger-Blackmun Relationship: Lessons for Collegiality from the Blackmun Papers, The Duane Benton Barrett J. Vahle Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Duane Benton and Barrett J. Vahle, Burger-Blackmun Relationship: Lessons for Collegiality from the Blackmun Papers, The, 70 MO. L. REV. (2005) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol70/iss4/4 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Benton and Vahle: Benton: Burger-Blackmun Relationship: The Burger-Blackmun Relationship: Lessons for Collegiality from the Blackmun Papers Duane Benton 2 Barrett J. Vahle On March 4, 2004, the Harry A. Blackmun Papers became available to the public at the Library of Congress.3 The Papers shed new light on Justice Blackmun's relationship with Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, providing a case study in collegiality. Before Blackmun's confirmation, an article in Time magazine stated, "No one seems to feel that Blackmun would be subservient to his lifelong friend, Chief Justice Warren Burger.' 4 The Senate appeared to agree, seemingly satis- fied with Blackmun's response to Senator Edward M. Kennedy's direct ques- tion about his relationship with Chief Justice Burger.5 The Associated Press, 6 New York Times, and Wall Street Journalwere, however, less sanguine.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Courts of the United States
    66 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL include the Administrative Assistant to of procedure to be followed by the the Chief Justice, the Clerk, the Reporter lower courts of the United States. of Decisions, the Librarian, the Marshal, Court Term The term of the Court the Director of Budget and Personnel, begins on the first Monday in October the Court Counsel, the Curator, the and lasts until the first Monday in Director of Data Systems, and the Public October of the next year. Approximately 8,000 cases are filed with the Court in Information Officer. the course of a term, and some 1,000 Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate applications of various kinds are filed jurisdiction has been conferred upon the each year that can be acted upon by a Supreme Court by various statutes under single Justice. the authority given Congress by the Access to Facilities The Supreme Court Constitution. The basic statute effective is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 at this time in conferring and controlling p.m., Monday through Friday, except on jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may Federal holidays. Unless the Court or be found in 28 U.S.C. 1251, 1253, Chief Justice orders otherwise, the 1254, 1257–1259, and various special Clerk’s office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 statutes. Congress has no authority to p.m., Monday through Friday, except on change the original jurisdiction of this Federal legal holidays. The library is Court. open to members of the bar of the Court, Rulemaking Power Congress has from attorneys for the various Federal time to time conferred upon the departments and agencies, and Members Supreme Court power to prescribe rules of Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit As of 10/8/2020
    Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Jeffrey R. Howard 0 Kermit Victor Lipez (Snr) Sandra L. Lynch Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby (Snr) 0 Jon David Levy George Z. Singal (Snr) Nancy Torresen John A. Woodcock, Jr. (Snr) United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs 0 Denise Jefferson Casper Timothy S. Hillman Mark G. Mastroianni George A. O'Toole, Jr. (Snr) Michael A. Ponsor (Snr) Patti B. Saris F. Dennis Saylor Leo T. Sorokin Richard G. Stearns Indira Talwani Mark L. Wolf (Snr) Douglas P. Woodlock (Snr) William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Paul J. Barbadoro 0 Joseph N. Laplante Steven J. McAuliffe (Snr) Landya B. McCafferty Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Francisco Augusto Besosa 0 Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez Daniel R. Dominguez (Snr) Jay A. Garcia-Gregory (Snr) Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez (Snr) United States District Court District of Rhode Island Mary M. Lisi (Snr) 0 John J. McConnell, Jr. William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Jose A. Cabranes 0 Guido Calabresi (Snr) Denny Chin Christopher F. Droney (Ret) Peter W. Hall Pierre N. Leval (Snr) Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Gerard E. Lynch (Snr) Jon O. Newman (Snr) Barrington D. Parker, Jr. (Snr) Reena Raggi (Snr) Robert D. Sack (Snr) John M.
    [Show full text]
  • Federalist Society, Applies a Double Standard, and Leads to Troubling Consequences
    March 18, 2020 Robert P. Deyling Assistant General Counsel Administrative Office of the United States Courts One Columbus Circle, NE Washington, D.C. 20544 Dear Mr. Deyling: We write to express our deep concern with the exposure draft of Advisory Opinion No. 117, recently issued by the Judicial Conference’s Code of Conduct Committee. We believe the exposure draft conflicts with the Code of Conduct, misunderstands the Federalist Society, applies a double standard, and leads to troubling consequences. The circumstances surrounding the issuance of the exposure draft also raise serious questions about the Committee’s internal procedures and transparency. We strongly urge the Committee to withdraw the exposure draft. Judges have long participated in and contributed to our robust legal community. The Judicial Code of Conduct urges that judges “not become isolated from the society in which [we] live[].”1 To that end, Canon 4 of the Code allows judges to serve as members—and even officers—of “nonprofit organization[s] devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.”2 The commentary to Canon 4 “encourage[s]” judges to “contribute to the law” through membership in “a bar association, judicial conference, or other organization dedicated to the law,” including those focused on “revising substantive and procedural law.” For good reason. We are all better served when judges expose themselves to a wide array of legal ideas. And we would like to think that those organizations benefit from having judges participate in them. 1 Canon 4 Commentary. 2 Canon 4(A)(3). Moreover, Canon 4 authorizes judicial participation in community affairs more broadly: “A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects.” Membership in the Federalist Society is wholly consistent with the Code.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the Supreme Court of Missouri, 1992–2007
    The Consequences of Judicial Selection: A Review of the Supreme Court of Missouri, 1992–2007 William G. Eckhardt John Hilton ABOUT THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is an organization of 40,000 lawyers, law students, scholars, and other individuals, located in every state and law school in the nation, who are interested in the current state of the legal order. The Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy questions, but is founded on the principles that the State exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Federalist Society takes seriously its responsibility as a non-partisan institution engaged in fostering a serious dialogue about legal issues in the public square. We occasionally produce “white papers” on timely and contentious issues in the legal or public policy world, in an effort to widen understanding of the facts and principles involved, and to continue that dialogue. Positions taken on specific issues in publications, however, are those of the author, and not reflective of an organization stance. This paper presents a number of important issues, and is part of an ongoing conversation. We invite readers to share their responses, thoughts and criticisms by writing to us at [email protected], and, if requested, we will consider posting or airing those perspectives as well. For more information about The Federalist Society, please visit our website: www.fed-soc.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Branch
    CHAPTER 5 JUDICIAL BRANCH Mother and Daughter Claire Custard and Glessie May Custard pose for a photograph in St. Louis in 1912. (photo cour- tesy of Donald E. Custard) 166 OFFICIAL MANUAL cuits. A presiding judge, elected by the other judges in the circuit, has general administrative authority over all judicial personnel in the circuit. He or she may assign other judges throughout the circuit to relieve caseload and administrative backlogs. The Supreme Court and court of appeals have general superintend- ing control over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdictions. Original remedial writs may be issued and determined at each Missouri’s Judicial level of the court system. Decisions of the Supreme Court are controlling in all other state courts. System Selection of Judges In the fi rst 30 years of Missouri’s statehood, the judges of the supreme, circuit and chancery courts were appointed by the From its inception in 1820, Missouri state government con- governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. After much stitutionally has been divided into three separate branches—leg- public discussion, the constitution was amended in 1850 to pro- islative, executive and judicial. The judicial branch’s function vide for the popular election of judges, and this system remains in is not to make the laws of the state or to administer them but effect for most Missouri courts today. In most circuits, the judges to adjudicate the controversies that arise between persons and are elected by the voters in partisan elections. parties, to determine fairly and justly the guilt or innocence of In 1940, Missouri voters amended the constitution by adopt- persons charged with criminal offenses and to interpret the laws ing the “Nonpartisan Selection of Judges Court Plan,” which was of the state as enacted by the legislature and carried out by the placed on the ballot by initiative petition and which provides for executive branch.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Lawyers of Missouri: 150 Years of Progress and Promise
    Missouri Law Review Volume 86 Issue 1 Winter 2021 Article 5 Winter 2021 Black Lawyers of Missouri: 150 Years of Progress and Promise Willie J. Epps Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Willie J. Epps Jr., Black Lawyers of Missouri: 150 Years of Progress and Promise, 86 MO. L. REV. (2021) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol86/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Epps: Black Lawyers of Missouri: 150 Years of Progress and Promise MISSOURI LAW REVIEW VOLUME 86 WINTER 2021 NUMBER 1 Black Lawyers of Missouri: 150 Years of Progress and Promise Willie J. Epps, Jr.* ABSTRACT In this Article, Judge Epps amasses and orchestrates an unprecedented amount of information about Missouri’s Black lawyers from 1871 to 2021. As Missouri marks its bicentennial, and the sesquicentennial of the first Black lawyer admitted to practice here, this Article offers analysis and insights about the most well-known Black lawyers, including new details on many previously unknown Black lawyers. According to Judge Epps, the earliest of these legal pioneers courageously practiced law when Blacks had few or no rights under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, and de jure and de facto discrimination reigned in Missouri.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Alarms Or Smoke Detectors: the Role of Interest Groups in Confirmation of United States Courts of Appeals Judges
    FIRE ALARMS OR SMOKE DETECTORS: THE ROLE OF INTEREST GROUPS IN CONFIRMATION OF UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS JUDGES By DONALD E. CAMPBELL A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2016 © 2016 Donald E. Campbell To Ken and JJ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It took Leo Tolstoy six years to write War and Peace. It has taken me twice that long to complete this dissertation, and I am certain I required much more support throughout the process than Tolstoy. I begin my acknowledgements with Dr. Marcus Hendershot. In short, this dissertation would not have been possible without Marc’s guidance, advice, and prodding. Every aspect of this dissertation has Marc’s imprint on it in some way. I cannot imagine the amount of time that he spent providing comments and suggestions. I will forever be in his debt and gratitude. I also want to thank the other members of my dissertation committee. Dr. Lawrence Dodd, the chair, has been a steadying force in my graduate school life since (literally) the first day I stepped in the door of Anderson Hall. His advice and encouragement will never be forgotten. The other members of my committee–Dr. Beth Rosenson, Dr. David Hedge, and Professor Danaya Wright (University of Florida School of Law)–have been more than understanding as the months dragged into years of getting the dissertation finalized. No one could ask for a better or more understanding dissertation committee. There are also several individuals outside of the University of Florida that I owe acknowledgements.
    [Show full text]