DOCSLIB.ORG

If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. • COURT',.---------. DIRECTORY MARCH 1987 '. 106091 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization cfiglnating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this c~d material has been granted by Public Domain/Administrative Office of the United states Courts to the National Crimi nat Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of th~ht owner. UNITED STATES COURT DIRECTORY Issued by: The Administrative Office of the United States Courts Wa~hington, D.C. 20544 Contents: Personnel Division " Office of the Chief (202-633-6115) Printing & Distribution: Administrative Services Division Printing & Distribution Facility (301-763-1865) The information in this Directory is current as of February I, 1987. TABLE OF CONTENTS Supreme Court . ................................................................................ United States Courts of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit ............................................... "................... 2 First Circuit. .. 4 Second Circuit. .. 5 Third Circuit. .. 8 Fourth Circuit. .. 10 Fifth Circuit ................................................................................. 12 Sixth Circuit ................................................................................. 15 Seventh Circuit . .. .. 18 Eight Circuit . .. 20 Ninth Circuit ................................................................................. 23 Tenth Circuit. .. 28 Eleventh Circuit . .. 30 Federal Circuit ............................................................................... 32 Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals. .. 34 United States Claims Court ..................................................................... " 37 United States Court of International Trade. .. 39 Special Court, Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 ............................................ 41 Judicial Panel on MuItidistrict Litigation ........................................................... 42 United States Court of Military Appeals ........................................................... 43 United States Tax Court ......................................................................... 44 United States District Courts Alabama Northern . .. 47 Middle ..................................................................................... 49 Southern ............ .. 50 Alaska ....................................................................................... 52 Arizona ...................................................................................... 54 Arkansas Eastern .................................................................................... 57 Western ................................................................................... 59 California Northern . .. 61 Eastern .................................................................................... 65 Central .................................................................................... 69 Southern ........... , ........ , ., ..................................... , .......... '" ........ 75 Colorado .................................................................................... 77 Connecticut ................................. , . .. 80 Delaware .................................................................................... 82 District of Columbia . .. 84 Florida Northern ................................ , . .. 87 Middle .................................. , . .. 89 Southern . .. 92 Georgia Northern . • . .. 95 Middle .......................................... , . .. 98 Southern ......................................... , ........................................ 100 Guam .................................... " .................................. , ............... 102 Hawaii ...................................................................................... 103 Idaho ....................................................................................... 105 Illinois Northern .............................. " ....................... , .......... , ................ 107 Central ................................ , ................................................... 111 Southern .................................................................................. 113 Indiana Northern .................................................................................. 115 Southern .................................................................................. 117 Iowa Northern .................................................................................. 119 Southern .................................................................................. 120 Kansas ...................................................................................... 122 Kentucky Eastern ........ , ........................................................................... 125 Western ................................................................................... 127 Louisiana Eastern .................................................................................... 129 Middle .............................................................. , ..................... 132 Western ................................................................................... 134 Maine ............................. , ..... , ................................................... 137 Maryland ...........•........................................................................ 139 Massachusetts ................................................................................ 142 Michigan Eastern .......................................................................... '.' ........ 145 Western ................................................................................... 149 Minnesota ...............................................•................................... 151 ii Mississippi Northern .................................................................................. 154 Southern .................................................................................. 156 Missouri Eastern .... ; ............................................................................... 158 Western ................................................................................... 160 Montana ...................................................................................... 163 Nebraska ........................................................................ " .......... 165 Nevada ..................... " .......... , .................................................... 167 New Hampshire .............................................................................. 169 New Jers~~ ................................................................................... 170 New Mexico .... ; ............................................................................. 173 New York Northern .................................................................................. 175 Southern .................................................................................. 177 Eastern .................................................................................... 182 Western ................................................................................... 185 North Carolina Eastern .................................................................................... 187 Middle .................................................................................... 189 Western ................................................................................... 190 North Dakota ................................................................................ 192 Northern Mariana Islands ...................................................................... 194 Ohio Northern ........................ , ......................................................... 195 Southern .................................................................................. 199 Oklahoma Northern .................................................................................. 202 Eastern .................................................................................... 204 Western ............................................................•...................... 206 Oregon ...................................................................................... 208 Pennsylvania Eastern .................................................................•.................. 211 Middle .................................................................................... 214 Western ................................................................................... 216 Puerto Rico .................................................................................. 219 Rhode Island ................................................................................. 221 South Carolina ...................•........................................................... 222 South Dakota ................................................................................ 224 iii Tennessee Eastern .................................................................................... 226 Middle ........................ '...........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Judges 1985–2017 Notre Dame Law School
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument Conferences, Events and Lectures 2017 List of Judges 1985–2017 Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_moot_court Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Notre Dame Law School, "List of Judges 1985–2017" (2017). Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument. 1. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_moot_court/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences, Events and Lectures at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. List of Judges that Have Served the Moot Court Showcase Argument 2009 to present held in McCarten Court Room, Eck Hall of Law Updated: March 2017 Name Yr. Served ND Grad Court Judge Alice Batchelder 3/3/2017 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Chief Justice Matthew Durrant 3/3/2017 Utah Supreme Court NDLS 1992 Judge John Blakey 3/3/2017 BA-UND 1988 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Chief Justice Matthew G. Durrant 2/25/2106 Utah Supreme Court Judge Alice Batchelder 2/25/2016 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen Kelly 2/25/2016 BA-UND 1983 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Joel F. Dubina 2/26/2015 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Chief Judge Frederico A. Moreno 2/26/2015 United States District Court - Miami, FL Judge Patricia O'Brien Cotter 2/26/2015 NDLS 1977 Montana Supreme Court Judge Margaret A.
    [Show full text]
  • Symposium:Jurocracy and Distrust:Reconsidering The
    User Name: Tyler Cooper Date and Time: Monday, May 20, 2019 6:05:00 PM EDT Job Number: 89258756 Document (1) 1. SYMPOSIUM:JUROCRACY AND DISTRUST:RECONSIDERING THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS PROCESS:JUDICIAL SELECTION AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY: DEMAND, SUPPLY, AND LIFE TENURE, 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 579 Client/Matter: -None- | About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2019 LexisNexis Tyler Cooper SYMPOSIUM:JUROCRACY AND DISTRUST:RECONSIDERING THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS PROCESS:JUDICIAL SELECTION AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY: DEMAND, SUPPLY, AND LIFE TENURE January, 2005 Reporter 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 579 * Length: 27441 words Author: Judith Resnik* * Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School. © Judith Resnik 2005. This article stems from presentations at the Symposium, Jurocracy, at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in March of 2004 and at the Symposium, Judicial Appointments in a Free and Democratic Society, at the University of Toronto Law School in April of 2004, and builds on my articles "Uncle Sam Modernizes his Justice System": Inventing the District Courts of the Twentieth Century, 90 Geo. L.J. 607 (2002), Trial as Error, Jurisdiction as Injury: Transforming the Meaning of Article III, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 924 (2000), and Changing Criteria for Judging Judges, 84 Nw. U. L. Rev. 889 (1990), as well as on testimony that I submitted to subcommittees of the United States Senate and of the Canadian House of Commons on the topic of judicial nominations. I benefited from comments of other participants, the exchanges at these symposia and hearings, and from discussions with Seyla Benhabib and Deborah Hensler. My thanks to Joseph Blocher, Andrew Goldstein, Paige Herwig, Johanna Kalb, Alison Mackenzie, Jennifer Peresie, Bertrall Ross, Kirby Smith, Laura Smolowe, and Steven Wu for research assistance, to Gene Coakley for all his efforts to locate relevant materials, and to Denny Curtis, Vicki Jackson, Roy Mersky, Roberta Romano, and Albert Yoon for helpful comments on earlier drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • The United States Government Manual 2009/2010
    The United States Government Manual 2009/2010 Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration The artwork used in creating this cover are derivatives of two pieces of original artwork created by and copyrighted 2003 by Coordination/Art Director: Errol M. Beard, Artwork by: Craig S. Holmes specifically to commemorate the National Archives Building Rededication celebration held September 15-19, 2003. See Archives Store for prints of these images. VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:39 Oct 26, 2009 Jkt 217558 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6996 Sfmt 6996 M:\GOVMAN\217558\217558.000 APPS06 PsN: 217558 dkrause on GSDDPC29 with $$_JOB Revised September 15, 2009 Raymond A. Mosley, Director of the Federal Register. Adrienne C. Thomas, Acting Archivist of the United States. On the cover: This edition of The United States Government Manual marks the 75th anniversary of the National Archives and celebrates its important mission to ensure access to the essential documentation of Americans’ rights and the actions of their Government. The cover displays an image of the Rotunda and the Declaration Mural, one of the 1936 Faulkner Murals in the Rotunda at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Building in Washington, DC. The National Archives Rotunda is the permanent home of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. These three documents, known collectively as the Charters of Freeedom, have secured the the rights of the American people for more than two and a quarter centuries. In 2003, the National Archives completed a massive restoration effort that included conserving the parchment of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and re-encasing the documents in state-of-the-art containers.
    [Show full text]
  • E,XTENSIONS of REMARKS SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH Our Citizens and the Quality of Our En­ Anticipated, However, and in Recent DISCUSSES INADEQUACY of the Vironment
    September 2, 1970 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 30753 E,XTENSIONS OF REMARKS SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH our citizens and the quality of our en­ anticipated, however, and in recent DISCUSSES INADEQUACY OF THE vironment. years, there was a reluctance in many FEDERAL RESEARCH, DEVELOP­ Securing adequate supplies of fuels, cases to develop alternative sources of oil MENT, AND DEMONSTRATION EF­ particularly coal, for the next 5 years is or coal production. The required new FORTS ON METHOD TO CONTROL one of the most pressing problems facing mines were not capitalized and opened AND ABATE POLLUTION RESULT­ many electric utilities. to the extent originally envisioned. This ING FROM FUELS AND ENERGY During the past 18 months fuel stocks is part of the fuels crisis that has PRODUCTION-THE ENVIRON­ have reportedly slipped from sufficient developed. MENT IMPACT OF FUELS AND EN­ coal for at least 90 days' operation to Abundant supplies of coal and other ERGY PRODUCTION ARE UNAC­ quantities sufficient for only about 40 fossil fuels are in the ground; our short­ CEPTABLE days' operation. The causes contributing coming is our capacity to extract these to this serious problem were reported in resources from the earth and convert the April 18 issue of Business Week mag­ them into electricity and deliver the en­ HON. JENNINGS RANDOLP~ azine. They include a willingness of the ergy to the ultimate consumer. OF WEST VIRGINIA Japanese to pay high coal prices, a short­ Accustomed to doubling electric gen­ IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES age of railway hopper cars, wildcat erating capacity every decade, we have Tuesday, September 1, 1970 strikes, and the impact of the Coal Mine lost sight of the fact that today this Health and Safety Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, PETITIONER v. RICHARD LAWRENCE, ET. AL PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI MARK J. FOLEY RICHARD FEDER GEORGE A. VOEGELE, JR. ELEANOR N. EWING Counsel of Record Cozen O’Connor The Atrium City of Philadelphia Law 1900 Market Street Department Philadelphia, PA 19103 1515 Arch Street, (215) 665-5595 17th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 683-5012 Attorneys for Petitioner CURRY & TAYLOR (202) 393-4141 i ii QUESTION PRESENTED PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Section 207 (k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act In addition to the parties named in the caption, the (the "FLSA") sets forth when overtime pay is due for following individuals are plaintiffs in the action and are public employees engaged in "fire protection activities." respondents here: Section 203 (y) defines such employees to include not only firefighters, but also paramedics who are trained in fire Kevin Jackson, John Cole, Scott D. McGarrigle, suppression, have the legal authority and responsibility to Richard Marks, Ivan T. Damjanovic, Morgan Miller, Alan engage in fire suppression, are employed by a municipal Sigal, W. Russel Bryant, Mervin K. Ghani, Alleyne fire department, and are engaged in responding to Arturo, Joni H. Kuonen, Domenic Rosati, John W. Getty, emergency situations where life, property, or the Joseph C. Mancini, William Brent, Michael Brooks, Duane environment is at risk. J. Boyes, Michael A. Flak, J. Todd Vreeland, Adam Wojnicki, Timothy S. O’Toole, Carl F.
    [Show full text]
  • District Clerk
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ,.p.l I r r " 28 2 5 1.0 :: 11111 . _ 11111 . 3 2 I IIIII~~ n~M1. 11111 - . 3 6 Ik\ 11111 . BOO 4 0 Ii'-2. 001,I~. • 0 I• I :ij'",li IIIII~~ 111111.8 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 150mm ->-----~-..... 6" UNI,TED STATES COURT. DIRECTORY Sf March 1, 1986 U.S. DepFrtment of Justice Natlonallnstitute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originallng it. Points of view or opinions staled in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this ~l:lted material has been granted by • • Publlc DOmaln Lnllted States Court Directory to the National Criminal JUstice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ " ) sion of the epp.y.ri:ght owner. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 I 053 03 • UNITED STATES COURT DIRECTORY Issued by: The Administrative Office of the United States Courts Washington, D.C. 20544 Contents: Personnel Division Office of the Chief (633-6115) Printing & Distribution: Administrative Services Division Printing & Distribution Facility (763-1865) • • The information in this Directory is current as of March I, 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS Supreme Court ...................................................................................................................... • United
    [Show full text]
  • Daily New Orleans, Louisiana
    November 20-30, 2003 77th Fall North American Bridge Championships New Orleans, Louisiana DailyVolume 77, Number 3 Sunday, November 23,Bulletin 2003 Editors: Henry Francis and Jody Latham Teacher defeats her students in Venice Cup final Victory did not come easy against a determined team from China, but the USA I team was finally able to celebrate with a 229.3-210 victory in the Venice Cup final in Monte Carlo earlier this month. America had just missed by a fraction against the Netherlands in the 2000 Venice Cup in Bermuda. Lynn Baker and Kerri Sanborn When it was over, Kathie Wei-Sender was happy Kyle Larsen and Jo Morse Baker, Sanborn hang on to congratulate the Chinese players for their good showing, but she breathed a sigh of relief that her pro- Morse, Larsen win for LM Women’s triumph teges didn’t play just a little bit better. Wei-Sender has Lynn Baker and Kerri Sanborn took the lead in done a lot to promote bridge in China, and she has LM Open Pairs personally helped the Chinese women’s team to the second final session of the Life Master Jo Morse and Kyle Larsen posted a strong climb the international ladder over the years. Women’s Pairs and held on for the win despite a 65.10% game in the first final session of the Life “They’re all my students,” she proudly proclaims. determined charge by Joan Jackson and Robin Klar, Master Open Pairs and followed with a 60.37% the leaders after the first final session.
    [Show full text]
  • California V. Azar
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and No. 19-15974 through Attorney General Xavier Becerra, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellee, 3:19-cv-01184-EMC v. ALEX M. AZAR II, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellants. ESSENTIAL ACCESS HEALTH, No. 19-15979 INC.; MELISSA MARSHALL, M.D., Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01195-EMC v. ALEX M. AZAR II, Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellants. 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. AZAR Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF No. 19-35386 NEW YORK; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF D.C. Nos. CONNECTICUT; STATE OF 6:19-cv-00317-MC DELAWARE; DISTRICT OF 6:19-cv-00318-MC COLUMBIA; STATE OF HAWAII; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF MARYLAND; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF VERMONT; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; STATE OF WISCONSIN; AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; OREGON MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHWESTERN OREGON; PLANNED PARENTHOOD COLUMBIA WILLAMETTE; THOMAS N. EWING, M.D.; MICHELE P. MEGREGIAN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. AZAR 3 C.N.M., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ALEX M.
    [Show full text]
  • Circuit Circuit
    April 2016 Featured In This Issue Remembering Justice Scalia, By Mark Filip An Interview with Judge David Hamilton, By Laura McNally Reflections on the Importance of Legal Aid in Recognition of the 50th Anniversary of LAF, TheThe By Robert M. Dow, Jr. and Elizabeth Hoskins Dow How to Succeed in Federal Court Without Really Trying or the Attorney’s Guide to Fame and Fortune in Federal Court, By Sara Ellis Making the Case for Mediation, By Arlander Keys CirCircuitcuit Think Once, Think Twice...Then Backspace and Delete, By Pat E. Morgenstern-Clarrent Every Picture Tells a Story: A Visual Guide to Evaluating Opinion Evidence in Social Security Appeals, By Iain D. Johnston Search Warrant Help Desk: Emergency Measures for Lawyer First-Responders, By Daniel Hartnett An Annotated Guide to the Standards for Professional Conduct within the Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit, RiderRiderT HE J OURNALOFTHE S EVENTH By Alexandra L. Newman C IRCUITIRCUIT B AR A SSOCIATION Consumer Data Encryption and the Autonomous Digital Self, By Matthew F. Prewitt Friend or Foe: The New Patent-Challenge Procedures at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, By Adam Kelly A Modest Proposal to Measure and Manage Bad Behavior by Lawyers, By Thomas E. Patterson The Post Wal-Mart Evolution of the Class Action, By Shankar Ramamurthy, Prof. Randall D. Schmidt Seventh Circuit Bar Association Report on the Seventh Circuit, By Collins T. Fitzpatrick Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman, By Rozlyn Fulgoni-Britton Magistrate Judge M. David Weisman, By Marc Beem iews from the ench V(and Other equally ImpOrtantBnOnjudIcIal musIngs) The Circuit Rider In This Issue Letter from the President .
    [Show full text]
  • Case No. 09-2473 in the United States Court of Appeals
    Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 CASE NO. 09-2473 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HANOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. Defendants-Appellees, On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (District Court #1:07-cv-356) APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF MICHAEL NEWDOW ROSANNA FOX Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Plaintiffs PO BOX 233345 12 ELDORADO CIRCLE SACRAMENTO, CA 95823 NASHUA, NH 03062 (916) 424-2356 (603) 318-8479 [email protected] [email protected] Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................3 I. “God” means “God” ...........................................................................4 II. The “Power, Prestige and Financial Support of Government” Has Real Consequences............................................14 III. The Organizations Which Have Involved Themselves in this Case Demonstrate that the Case is About (Christian) Monotheism........................................................................................15 IV. Congress’ 2002 Reaffirmation of the Pledge was a Sham
    [Show full text]
  • THE UNITED STATES COURTS of APPEALS DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION for PHASE 1 a Multi User Data Base Created by a Grant from the Natio
    THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION for PHASE 1 A Multi User Data Base Created by a Grant from the National Science Foundation (SES-8912678) Principal Investigator: Donald R. Songer Professor of Political Science University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208 email: Dsonger @ sc.edu Table of Contents General Introduction................................... 3 Files Distributed...................................... 7 Sampling & Weighting................................... 8 Reliability Analysis................................... 9 Variable list.......................................... 10 DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES Basic Case Characteristics General Description.......................... 17 History & Nature of Case..................... 21 Participants Appellants................................... 32 Respondents.................................. 58 Other Participants........................... 66 Issue Coding Basic Nature of Issues & Decision............ 68 Provisions Cited in Headnotes................ 95 Threshhold Issues............................102 Criminal Issues..............................109 Civil Law Issues.............................118 Civil Government & Administrative Law........127 Diversity Issues.............................134 Judges and Votes..................................135 Appendix 1: Alphabetical List of Variables.............147 Appendix 2: Variable List in Input Order...............152 Appendix 3: List of Appeals Court Judge Codes..........158 Appendix 4: List of District Court Judge Codes.........173
    [Show full text]