DOCSLIB.ORG

Content Libraries in Fastcase 7

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Content Libraries in Fastcase 7 Last Updated: 02.15.21 Constitutions U.S. Constitution State Constitutions for all 50 States District of Columbia Home Rule Act Caselaw U.S. Supreme Court Arizona Court of Appeals All Federal Circuit Courts Arizona Tax Court All Federal District Courts Arkansas Supreme Court All Federal Bankruptcy Courts Arkansas Court of Appeals Alabama Supreme Court California Supreme Court Alabama Court of Civil Appeals California Court of Appeals Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals California Superior Court Alaska Supreme Court Colorado Supreme Court Alaska Court of Appeals Colorado Court of Appeals Arizona Supreme Court Connecticut Supreme Court Page 1 Connecticut Appellate Court Maryland Court of Special Appeals Delaware Supreme Court Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Delaware Chancery Court Massachusetts Appeals Court Delaware Superior Court Michigan Supreme Court Delaware Family Court Michigan Court of Appeals District of Columbia Court of Appeals Minnesota Supreme Court Florida Supreme Court Minnesota Court of Appeals Florida District Court of Appeal Mississippi Supreme Court Georgia Supreme Court Mississippi Court of Appeals Georgia Court of Appeals Missouri Supreme Court Hawaii Supreme Court Missouri Court of Appeals Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Montana Supreme Court Idaho Supreme Court Nebraska Supreme Court Idaho Court of Appeals Nebraska Court of Appeals Illinois Supreme Court Nevada Supreme Court Illinois Appellate Court Nevada Court of Appeals Indiana Supreme Court New Hampshire Supreme Court Indiana Court of Appeals New Jersey Supreme Court Iowa Supreme Court New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division Iowa Court of Appeals New Mexico Supreme Court Kansas Supreme Court New Mexico Court of Appeals Kansas Court of Appeals New York Court of Appeals Kentucky Supreme Court New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term Kentucky Court of Appeals New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Louisiana Supreme Court North Carolina Supreme Court Louisiana Court of Appeal North Carolina Court of Appeals Maine Supreme Judicial Court North Dakota Supreme Court Maryland Court of Appeals Court of Appeals of North Dakota Page 2 Ohio Supreme Court South Dakota Supreme Court Ohio Court of Appeals Tennessee Supreme Court Oklahoma Supreme Court Tennessee Court of Appeals Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Texas Supreme Court Oregon Supreme Court Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Oregon Court of Appeals Texas Court of Appeals Oregon Employee Relations Board Interest Utah Supreme Court Arbitration Awards Utah Court of Appeals Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals Final Opinions Vermont Supreme Court Oregon Workers’ Compensation Board Opinions Virginia Supreme Court Pennsylvania Supreme Court Virginia Court of Appeals Pennsylvania Superior Court Washington Supreme Court Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Washington Court of Appeals Rhode Island Supreme Court West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals South Carolina Supreme Court Wisconsin Supreme Court South Carolina Court of Appeals Wisconsin Court of Appeals Wyoming Supreme Court Speciality Courts Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals Board of Tax Appeals Regional Rail Reorganization Court U.S. Tax Court Page 3 Attorney General Opinions California Mississippi South Carolina District of Columbia Missouri South Dakota Georgia Montana Tennessee Hawaii New Mexico Washington Illinois North Carolina Maryland Oregon Administrative Opinions Federal Board of Immigration Appeals Decisions USCIS Administrative Appeals Office IRS Revenue Rulings EEOC Federal Sector Decisions U.S. Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals Immigration Decisions of the Admin. Law Judge USDOL Administrative Review Board Longshore and Harbor Workers Comp. Opinions ● (Lower level ALJ hearings and board appeals) Office of the Chief Admin. Hearing Officer State Delaware Workers’ Compensation Decisions Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Decisions Haw. Labor and Industrial Relations App. Bd. South Carolina Admin. Law Court Decisions Iowa Workers Compensation Decisions Oregon Administrative Orders Massachusetts Workers Compensation Decisions Utah Labor Commission Decisions Massachusetts Land Court Decisions Page 4 Legislative Materials Federal U.S. Code State Code of Alabama Iowa Statutes Alaska Statutes Kansas Statutes Arizona Revised Statutes Kentucky Revised Statutes Arkansas Code Louisiana Children's Code Arkansas Acts Louisiana Civil Code California Code Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Colorado Revised Statutes Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure General Statutes of Connecticut Louisiana Code of Evidence Delaware Code Louisiana Constitution Ancillaries District of Columbia Code Louisiana Revised Statutes Florida Statutes Maine Revised Statutes Georgia Code Maryland Code Georgia Acts The General Laws of Massachusetts Hawaii Revised Statutes Massachusetts Acts Hawaii County Code Michigan Compiled Laws Kaua’i County Code Minnesota Statutes Maui County Code Minnesota Session Laws Revised Ordinances of Honolulu Mississippi Code Idaho Statutes Missouri Revised Statutes Illinois Compiled Statutes Missouri Bills Illinois Public Acts Montana Code Indiana Code Montana Session Laws Iowa Criminal Statutes Summary Chart Nebraska Revised Statutes Page 5 Nevada Revised Statutes South Carolina Code of Laws New Jersey Statutes South Carolina Acts New Mexico Statutes South Dakota Codified Laws New Mexico Session Laws South Dakota Session Laws Laws of New York Tennessee Code New York Court Acts Tennessee Private Acts North Carolina General Statutes Tennessee Public Acts Durham City Code Tennessee Resolutions Raleigh City Code Texas Statutes Winston-Salem City Code Texas Session Laws Greensboro City Code U.S. Virgin Islands Code North Carolina Session Laws Utah Statutes North Dakota Century Code Vermont Statutes Ohio Revised Code Virginia Statutes Oklahoma Statutes Revised Code of Washington Oregon Revised Statutes Washington Session Laws Oregon Session Laws West Virginia Code Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes West Virginia Acts Pennsylvania Unconsolidated Statutes Wisconsin Statutes Laws of Puerto Rico Wisconsin Acts Rhode Island General Laws Wyoming Statutes Page 6 Regulations Federal Code of Federal Regulations State Alabama Administrative Code Administrative Rules of Montana Alaska Administrative Code Nebraska Rules and Regulations Arizona Administrative Code Nevada Administrative Code Arkansas Administrative Rules New Hampshire Administrative Rules California Code of Regulations New Jersey Administrative Code Code of Colorado Regulations New Mexico Administrative Code Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Delaware Administrative Code North Carolina Administrative Code D.C. Municipal Regulations North Dakota Administrative Code Florida Administrative Code Ohio Administrative Code Georgia Rules and Regulations Oklahoma Administrative Rules Hawaii Administrative Rules Oregon Administrative Rules Idaho Administrative Code The Pennsylvania Code Illinois Administrative Code Rhode Island Code of Regulations Indiana Administrative Code South Carolina Code of Regulations Iowa Administrative Code South Dakota Administrative Rules Kansas Administrative Regulations Tennessee Rules and Regulations Kentucky Administrative Regulations Texas Administrative Code Louisiana Administrative Code Utah Administrative Code Code of Maine Rules Code of Vermont Rules Code of Maryland Regulations Virginia Administrative Code Michigan Administrative Code Washington Administrative Code Minnesota Administrative Rules West Virginia Code of State Rules Mississippi Administrative Code Wisconsin Administrative Code Missouri Code of State Regulations Wyoming Regulatio​ns Page 7 Jury Instructions (Civil and Criminal Except Where Noted) Alabama ​(Criminal Only) Illinois New York ​(Criminal Only) Alaska Iowa North Carolina Arizona Mass. (​Criminal Only) Oklahoma Delaware Michigan South Dakota Florida Mississippi Utah Hawaii New Jersey Wisconsin Idaho New Mexico Court Rules Federal 5th Circuit Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability Proceedings Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Circuit Rules for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Federal Rules of Evidence Federal Sentencing Guidelines Immigration Court Practice Manual Local Rules of Appellate Procedure for the Sixth Circuit Rules for the U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Rules for the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit Rules of United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit Rules of United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit Rules of United States Court of Appeals Federal Circuit Page 8 Rules of United States Court of Appeals First Circuit Rules of United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit Rules of United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Rules of United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit Rules of United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit Rules of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Rules of the United States Supreme Court US Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure State Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure Alabama Rules of Evidence Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration Alabama Rules of Juvenile Procedure
Recommended publications
  • Arkansas Supreme Court

    Arkansas Supreme Court

    ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT State Contracts Over $50,000 Awarded To Minority Owned Businesses Fiscal Year 2020 None Employment Summary Male Female Total % White Employees 13 29 42 89 % Black Employees 2 1 3 6 % Other Racial Minorities 1 1 2 5 % Total Minorities 5 11 % Total Employees 47 100 % Publications A.C.A. 25-1-201 et seq. Required for Unbound Black & Cost of Unbound Statutory # of Reason(s) for Continued White Copies Copies Produced Name General Authorization Governor Copies Publication and Distribution Produced During During the Last Assembly the Last Two Years Two Years Arkansas Reports/ AR Appellate ACA 16-11-201; AR Supreme N N 0 Publication of the Supreme Court opinions 0 0.00 Reports Court Rule 5-2 ceased with volume 375 Ark/104 Ark. App. These opinions are now published online. IN RE: Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rule 5-2 (May 28, 2009) ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT - 0032 Page 1 Honorable John Dan Kemp, Chief Justice ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT - 0032 Honorable John Dan Kemp, Chief Justice Department Appropriation Summary Historical Data Agency Request and Executive Recommendation 2019-2020 2020-2021 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 Appropriation Actual Pos Budget Pos Authorized Pos Agency Pos Executive Pos Agency Pos Executive Pos 008 Supreme Court - Operations 5,155,467 48 6,013,886 48 5,329,935 48 5,958,765 48 0 0 5,959,010 48 0 0 C66 SC Bar of Arkansas-Cash 3,753,854 25 5,075,000 25 5,075,000 25 5,279,200 25 0 0 5,279,200 25 0 0 Total 8,909,321 73 11,088,886 73 10,404,935 73 11,237,965 73 0 0 11,238,210 73 0 0 Funding Sources % % % % % % State Central Services 4000035 5,155,467 57.9 6,013,886 54.2 5,958,765 53.0 0 0.0 5,959,010 53.0 0 0.0 Cash Fund 4000045 3,753,854 42.1 5,075,000 45.8 5,279,200 47.0 0 0.0 5,279,200 47.0 0 0.0 Total Funds 8,909,321 100.0 11,088,886 100.0 11,237,965 100.0 0 0.0 11,238,210 100.0 0 0.0 Excess Appropriation/(Funding) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 8,909,321 11,088,886 11,237,965 0 11,238,210 0 FY21 Budget amount in 008 exceeds the authorized amount due to salary and matching rate adjustments during the 2019-2021 Biennium.
  • Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1996

    Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1996

    YEAR IN REVIEW Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Year in Review 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .............................................................................. 167 II. A dm inistrative Law ................................................................. 167 A . Public Contracting .................. ..... ............. 167 B. Land Use and Resource Management ........................... 171 C. A dm inistrative Procedure ............................................... 175 III. Business Law ............................................................................ 176 IV . Civil Procedure ........................................................................ 178 A. Timeliness of Prosecution and Appeal .......................... 179 B . M odification of Judgm ent ............................................... 181 C. M iscellaneous .................................................................... 183 V . Constitutional Law .................................................................. 188 A . D ue Process ....................................................................... 188 B . D ouble Jeopardy .............................................................. 191 C. Right to Jury Trial ............................................................ 192 D . M iscellaneous .................................................................... 193 V I. Crim inal Law ............................................................................ 197 A . Constitutional Protections ..............................................
  • State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1988 Xi FIGURE D: Criminal Case Unit of Count Used by the State Trial Courts

    State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1988 Xi FIGURE D: Criminal Case Unit of Count Used by the State Trial Courts

    AJIIL State court T caseload statistics: Annual Report 1988 Wyoming Conference of State Court Administrators Alabama Alaska Arizl :alifornia Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida laho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Mary1 Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevad; ew Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohia C 'ennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota ' tah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming ourt Administrators Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Coll elaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois In Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mint lissouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New orth Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Pui ;land South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Conference of State Court Administratc Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District1 1 NCSC 1 KF i A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators i 180 , .c74 I and the National Center for State Courts : 1988 I c. 2 I bu .CT q IC1 bS glib state court c ,a-- T caseload statistics: Annual Report, 1988 Funding Provided by the STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE Grant Number SJI 88-07X-067 ~pdcJ-3-clO A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators, State Justice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts’ Court Statistics Project February 1990 Library National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Av~. WilIiarnsburg, VA 231 87-8798 Copyright@by The National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-097-X National Center Publication No. R-115 This report was developed under Grant SJI-88-07X-067 from the State Justice Institute.
  • STATE V. JENKINS--FIRST DISSENT

    STATE V. JENKINS--FIRST DISSENT

    ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE v. JENKINSÐFIRST DISSENT KATZ, J., dissenting. Both the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, it is undisputed that the initial stop of the defendant, Chris- topher Jenkins, for improperly changing lanes was rea- sonable and, therefore, valid under both of these provisions.
  • 2016 Judicial Performance Review

    2016 Judicial Performance Review

    2016 Judicial Performance Review Prepared by The Iowa State Bar Association Table of Contents Judicial Performance Review Information....................................................................................................3 Judicial Performance Review Q&A...............................................................................................................4 Judicial Biographies.....................................................................................................................................6 Judicial Performance Review Results Iowa Supreme Court..................................................................................................................................22 Iowa Court of Appeals...............................................................................................................................23 District 1A.................................................................................................................................................24 Allamakee, Clayton, Delaware, Dubuque, Winneshiek Counties District 1B.................................................................................................................................................25 Black Hawk, Buchanan, Chickasaw, Fayette, Grundy, Howard Counties District 2A.................................................................................................................................................26 Bremer, Butler, Cerro Gordo, Floyd, Franklin, Hancock, Mitchell, Winnebago, Worth Counties
  • Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States

    Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States

    Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States Composition of the Supreme Court Tuesday, July 20, 2021 Written Statement of Marin K. Levy Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law Co-Chair Bauer, Co-Chair Rodriguez, and distinguished members of the Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of Supreme Court expansion and composition. By way of background, I am a Professor of Law at the Duke University School of Law and a faculty advisor to the Bolch Judicial Institute. My research and teaching over the past twelve years have focused on judicial administration and appellate courts. It is a distinct honor and privilege to speak with you on these matters. Court expansion and other changes to the Court’s composition implicate fundamental questions about the role and operation of our nation’s highest court. These include whether expanding the Court would harm the institution’s legitimacy, whether expansion would prompt a series of expansions in the future, whether an expanded Court could function well as a single decision-making body, and whether expansion would contradict existing constitutional norms and conventions. Even if the answers to these questions were known, there is a larger background question to be answered—namely how such considerations should be weighted in assessing any proposal to change the Court’s structure. It is no easy task that the Commission has been given, and I hope that the legal community and public at large is cognizant of this. In contrast to the subject of the panel, my own testimony will be fairly circumscribed.
  • Reasonable Efforts: a Judicial Perspective

    Reasonable Efforts: a Judicial Perspective

    REASONABLE EFFORTS: A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE By Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)1 .INTRODUCTION The term “reasonable efforts” challenges and confounds many in our juvenile dependency and family courts across the country.2 Judges hear about it in their judicial trainings, read about it now and then in publications, sign their names to court orders finding that the children’s services agency (“agency”) made “reasonable efforts” on a daily basis, and on occasion make “no reasonable efforts” findings. Yet attorneys rarely refer to reasonable efforts in court, and most judges approve of what the agency has done with little or no thought about it.3 The law requires judges to make these findings, and good reasons exist to do so. By making the reasonable efforts/no reasonable efforts findings the court informs the parties, the children’s services agency, and the federal government that the agency is or is not meeting its legal responsibilities. By monitoring the agency’s actions the court ensures that the agency has complied with its legal obligation to provide services to prevent the child’s removal from parental care, assist the family safely to reunify with its child, and make certain to finalize a permanent plan for the child. The reasonable efforts/no reasonable efforts findings are the most powerful tools juvenile court judges have at their disposal in dependency cases, and attorneys and judges should pay special attention to them to ensure that the 1 Judge Edwards is a retired judge now working as a consultant to juvenile courts in California and other states. The author is indebted to many people for the research and information contained in this booklet.
  • Appellate Update January 2020

    Appellate Update January 2020

    APPELLATE LJPDATE PUBLISHED BY THE JANUARY 2O2O ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS VOLUME 27, NO. 5 Appellate Update is a service provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts to assist in locating published decisions of the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. It is.not an official publication of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be a complete summary of each case; rather, it highlights some of the issues in the case. A case of interest can be found in its entirety by searching this website: https ://opinions. arcourts. gov/ark/enlnav' do ANNOUNCEMENTS On December 19,2019, amendments to the Rule and Regulations governing Court Reporters were published for comment. The comment period expires on March 31,2020. CRIMINAL Harper v. State,2020 Ark. App, 4 [Ark. Code Ann. $ 16-39-1151 Appellant sought disclosure and review of notes taken by the prosecutor during an interview with the victim. After conducting an in camera review, the circuit court concluded that: (1) the prosecutor's notes were not a statement as defined by Arkansas Code Annotated $ 16-89-115; (2) the notes contained no information that probably would have changed the outcome of the trial; and (3) the nondisclosure of the notes is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the information in the notes was readily available through other discovery provided in the case by the State. Arkansas Code on direct Annotated $ 16-89-115(b) provides that after awitness called by the State has testified examination, the court on motion of the defendant shall order the State to produce any statement of the witness in the possession of the State that relates to the subject matter about which the -1- witness has testified.
  • COMPLAINT and APPLICATION for ALTERNATE WRIT of MANDATE Thomas M

    COMPLAINT and APPLICATION for ALTERNATE WRIT of MANDATE Thomas M

    COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATE WRIT OF MANDATE Thomas M. France, Esq. National Wildlife Federation 240 N. Higgins Ave., Suite #2 Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 721-6705 David K. Wilson, Esq. Reynolds, Motl and Shenvood 401 N. Last Chance Gulch Helena, MT 59601 (406) 442-3261 MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURf, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY ******** MONTANAE~RONMENTAL ) INFORMATION CENTER, ) CAUSE NO. CLARK FORK-PEND ) OREILLE COALITION, WOMEN'S } VOICE FOR THE EARfH, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION ) FOR ALTERNATE WRIT v. ) OFMANDATE ) DEPARfMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) QUALI1Y, ) ) Defendant. ) * * * * * * * * COME NOW Plaintiffs, with their claims for declaratory relief and Mandamus against the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and allege as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Seven-Up Pete Joint Venture (SPJV) has submitted an application for a massive open-pit gold mine (McDonald Project) in the upper -Blackfoot River valley, near the confluence of the Landers Fork and Blackfoot Rivers. SPJV is a partnership between Phelps Dodge Mining Co. and Canyon 1 I ,l ,. f Resources Crop. and has been actively exploring gold deposits in the area of the mine for the past several years. 2. This Complaint challenges actions by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in approving actions connected with this mine · proposal. This summer, DEQ illegally amended a mineral exploration license held by SPJV to allow for the discharge of groundwater containing high levels of arsenic and .zinc into the shallow aquifers of the Blackfoot and Landers Fork Rivers. DEQ's actions violate the Montana Water Quality Act and the Montana Environmental Policy Act, the Montana Administrative Procedures Act and the Montana Constitution.
  • Published United States Court of Appeals for The

    Published United States Court of Appeals for The

    PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2176 ELDERBERRY OF WEBER CITY, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LIVING CENTERS – SOUTHEAST, INCORPORATED, a North Carolina corporation; FMSC WEBER CITY OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CONTINIUMCARE OF WEBER CITY, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; MARINER HEALTH CARE, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:12-cv-00052-NKM-RSB) Argued: January 28, 2015 Decided: July 21, 2015 Amended: August 10, 2015 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Wynn joined. ARGUED: James F. Segroves, HOOPER, LUNDY & BOOKMAN, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. James Strother Crockett, Jr., SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lori D. Thompson, LECLAIRRYAN, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellants. Travis A. Knobbe, M. Mallory Mantiply, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. GREGORY, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-appellee Elderberry of Weber City, LLC (“Elderberry”) filed this civil action in the Western District of Virginia alleging breach of a lease for a skilled nursing facility against defendants-appellants Living Centers – Southeast, Inc. (“Living Centers”), FMSC Weber City Operating Company, LLC (“FMSC”), and ContiniumCare of Weber City (“Continium”), and breach of a guaranty contract against defendant-appellant Mariner Health Care, Inc. (“Mariner”). Separately, in the Northern District of Georgia, Mariner filed a declaratory judgment action against Elderberry, seeking a declaration that it had no obligations under the guaranty.
  • The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures

    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures

    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community.
  • Opinion, Dean and Martha Lowe V. Joseph C. and Joyce Richards, Et Al., No. 13-0234

    Opinion, Dean and Martha Lowe V. Joseph C. and Joyce Richards, Et Al., No. 13-0234

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2014 Term FILED April 10, 2014 _____________ released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK No. 13-0234 SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS _____________ OF WEST VIRGINIA DEAN LOWE AND MARTHA LOWE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE DEMAR REVOCABLE TRUST, Petitioners V. JOSEPH C. RICHARDS AND JOYCE A. RICHARDS, AND HUGH E. HEGYI, TRUSTEE OF THE HERMAN HEGYI TRUST, Respondents Appeal from the Circuit Court of Berkeley County Honorable John C. Yoder, Judge Civil Action No. 11-C-979 REVERSED AND REMANDED Submitted: March 25, 2014 Filed: April 10, 2014 Michael L. Scales, Esq. Charles F. Printz, Jr., Esq. Martinsburg, West Virginia Jonathan T. Mayhew, Esq. Attorney for Petitioners, Bowles Rice LLP Dean and Martha Lowe Martinsburg, West Virginia Attorney for the Respondents, Joseph C. and Joyce A. Richards CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIS delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. “Whenever it is determined that a court has no jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of a civil action, the forum court must take no further action in the case other than to dismiss it from the docket.” Syllabus point 1, Hinkle v. Bauer Lumber & Home Bldg. Center, Inc., 158 W. Va. 492, 211 S.E.2d 705 (1975). 2. The circuit courts of West Virginia have subject matter jurisdiction to resolve an interstate boundary line dispute between private litigants involving the issue of whether real property is located within the State of West Virginia or another state. Under the decision in Durfee v.