Colorado Judicial Institute

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Colorado Judicial Institute COLORADO JUDICIAL INSTITUTE Volume 10, Issue 4 4th Quarter, 2014 In this Issue: “Know Your Judge” Also Means CJI Inaugural Education Summit —Page 2 “Know the Process” By Cynthia Ophaug-Johansen, CJI Staff CJI Continues Scholarships to Family Law Institute It’s election season in Colorado. You “The key is that the commissioners are —Page 2 now know more about the candidates on citizen volunteers,” says Kent Wagner, your ballot than you do about most of Executive Director of the Office of Honorees for 2014 Judicial Excellence for Colorado Dinner your family members. And, as an Judicial Performance Evaluation. —Page 3 informed Coloradan, you’ve researched “Anyone can submit an application from the judges up for retention in your district IAALS Pilot Program Reduces our website.” Cost of Civil Cases either in your blue book or by reading —Page 4 their judicial performance evaluations Commissioners review information from: In the News... online. You are as informed as you could Courtroom observations —Page 4 possibly be. Or are you? Self-evaluations written by the judges Decisions/opinions CJI Judicial Education Fund Has Strong 2014 This year it’s not just the judges that are Case management statistics for the —Page 5 under attack but the judicial performance judges evaluation process itself. Misinformation Legal Resource Day Sponsored Interviews with a representative of the by CJI about how judges are evaluated and who District Attorney and a representative —Page 5 evaluates them hurts the credibility of of the Public Defender, if requested Colorado’s merit selection system. Reserve Your Seats Now! Interviews with judges and other CJI Judicial Excellence for interested persons Colorado’s judicial performance Colorado Dinner Public hearings —Page 6 evaluations are overseen by state and Written information and district level commissions under the CJI Executive Committee: documentation submitted to the direction of the state’s Office of Judicial K.C. Groves—Chair Commission by interested persons Randell Bartlett—Vice Chair Performance Evaluation. The Chief Survey report results compiled from Peter D. Willis—Vice Chair Justice, the Governor, the President of the David A. Hall—Treasurer attorneys (including prosecutors, Senate and the Speaker of the House Thomas R. O'Donnell—Secretary public defenders, and private appoint the state and local commission attorneys), non-attorneys (including CJI Staff: members to four-year terms. Each jurors, litigants, law enforcement Executive Director commission is a 10-member body Amy Ostheimer personnel, court employees, court comprised of four attorneys and six non- Director of Marketing and Administration interpreters, probation office attorneys. Cynthia Ophaug-Johansen employees, social service department Executive Assistant employees, and crime victims), and Laura Rothenberg The state commission is responsible for other judges. the evaluation of court of appeals judges and supreme court justices. Each of The surveys are conducted by Research Judicial Colorado’s 22 judicial districts has its & Polling, Inc., an independent research Institute own commission that conducts company. Using court data and data from evaluations of the district’s county and P.O Box 118 Attorney Registration, the Colorado Broomfield, CO 80038-0118 district judges. (303) 766-7501 District Attorneys’ Council, and State www.ColoradoJudicialInstitute.org Continued Under “Judicial Performance Evaluations” on Page 6 CJI Hosts Inaugural Educational Summit: The Judges’ Perspective; Colorado’s Fair and Impartial Judicial System By Amy Ostheimer, CJI Executive Director With the objective of discussing the role of politics in selecting judges, either by the election system or by the merit selection system, CJI invited knowledgeable and experienced speakers to present the facts. The speakers were: Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Nancy E. Rice; Bert Brandenburg, Executive Director, Justice at Stake; Chief Judge Janice Davidson (ret.), Senior Advisor, Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System; Judge Russell Carparelli (ret.), Executive Director, American Judicature Society; Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Richard L. Gabriel and District Court Judge David Shakes, 4th Judicial District. Court of Appeals Judge Rich Gabriel listens The program was held the morning of September 12, as Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice 2014, in the prestigious Ralph L. Carr Justice Center, Nancy Rice speaks during the inaugural CJI Education Summit. providing an opportunity for the attendees to tour the award winning Learning Center and the Supreme Court Library. Following breakfast, the participants gathered in organizations keep a watchful eye and stand guard to the Supreme Court Courtroom for the program. protect Colorado’s judicial system. The audience quickly learned of the advantages of a merit A “Judges’ Panel,” facilitated by Judge Russell Carparelli, selection system, a system adopted by the people of ran the gamut of “why did you apply to become a judge” Colorado in 1966, and the potential biases and impartiality to “how do you decide cases?” There was a take away for that come with the election of judges. Bert Brandenburg all members of the diverse audience. Be it a better provided a national update and voiced some concern understanding of Colorado’s merit selection/retention regarding the vulnerability of the merit selection system. system and its vulnerabilities, the difference between trial Judge Davidson, on the other hand, was more optimistic in judges and appellate court judges, getting better her historical overview of Colorado’s judicial system. In acquainted with those who interpret the law or filling the spite of the various viewpoints regarding the fragility of need for additional CLE credits, the general consensus was Colorado’s merit selection system, CJI and its partner the same. It was a superb program. CJI Offers Scholarships to CO Bar Annual Family Law Institute Mary Dilworth, Marketing Manager, Colorado Bar Association CLE There were more than 450 attendees at the 2014 Family (ret.), Hon. Emily Anderson, and Magistrate Judith Law Institute. It was presented by the Colorado Bar Goeke talked on “The Judicial Experience of ENA (Early Association Family Law Section, in cooperation with the Neutral Assessment).” Hon. Angela Arkin, Magistrate CBA Juvenile Law Section, Colorado Collaborative Elizabeth Brodsky, and Magistrate Clay Hurst served on Divorce Professionals; the Metropolitan Denver IDC; the the “Excelling in the Courtroom: Preparation, Colorado AFCC, and Colorado Bar Association CLE. A Presentation & Professionalism” panel, moderated by number of judges and magistrates spoke, including Hon. attorney Cyndy Ciancio. Victor Reyes on “The Interface Between Domestic Violence and Parental Responsibilities,” and the Hon. Gary Abrams, Executive Director of Colorado Bar Elizabeth Leith on “Unraveling Competence.” Association CLE, says, “The judges participating in the institute are absolutely vital to the success and quality of Two excellent judicial panels were offered as breakout the programming. Their contribution is invaluable.” sessions. Justice William Hood, Hon. Anne Mansfield 2 CJI Honors Three Outstanding Judges at Upcoming Judicial Excellence for Colorado Dinner By Amy Ostheimer, CJI Executive Director On the evening of November 12, 2014, three jurists will be Judge Sabino E. Romano honored by the Colorado Judicial Institute (CJI) and will Adams County, 17th Judicial District receive CJI’s Judicial Excellence Award. CJI first recognized outstanding jurists in 2000 and has had the Judge Romano, a Colorado pleasure of honoring forty-four jurists for their exemplary native, engaged in private duty on the bench. This year the number will increase to practice from 1974 to 1983 forty-seven award recipients. when he was appointed County Court Magistrate The 12th Annual Judicial Excellence for Colorado Dinner in Arapahoe County. In takes place Wednesday, November 12, 2014, at Denver December of 1986, Judge Marriott City Center. Tickets are available on CJI’s Romano was appointed as website at www.ColoradoJudicialInstitute.org. This an Adams County Judge dinner benefits CJI’s Judicial Education Fund, Our Courts by Governor Richard and other CJI programs. Lamm and has served in that position for 28 years. He graduated from the University of Denver in 1971 with The 2014 CJI Judicial Excellence Award Recipients: degrees in Political Science and Geology, and was immediately accepted to the University of Denver Law Chief Judge Claude W. Appel School, graduating in 1973. 3rd Judicial District Judge Romano, known as one of the friendliest judges in Judge Appel was the 17th J.D., has handled the full scope of County Court appointed as a District cases, however, he exclusively handles civil cases. He is Judge in March 1986; he responsible for processing approximately 31,000 cases and served as a County Judge presides over 400 trials per year. from January 1985 to March 1986. Prior to his Magistrate Marianne M. Tims appointment as a judge, he 1st Judicial District was in private practice in Longmont, Colorado, then Prior to her swearing in in served as a Deputy Jefferson County in 2004, District Attorney in the Third Judicial District and had a Magistrate Tims was a private practice there. He received his B.A. degree from county attorney in both Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, in 1974 and Jefferson and Arapahoe his law degree from the University of Colorado in 1978. counties handling child
Recommended publications
  • Colorado Replication of the 1990 National Prosecutors Survey I .'
    I I I Colorado Replication of the 1990 I National Prosecutors Survey I I I I I I September 1992 'I I I :1 I Office of Research and Statistics I Division of Criminal Justice I Colorado Department of Public Safety ,I ;1 • I I' I Colorado Replication of the 1990 I National Prosecutors Survey I I I, By Joan Crouch I I I September 1992 I I Kim K. English, Research Director ! I William R. Woodward, Division Director I Colorado Division of Criminal Justice , I I I Funded by Grant 91-BJ-CX-K032 from the Bureau of Justice Statistics I I I I I I I I U.S. Department of Justice 143494 National Institute of Justice I This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating 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 Nat/onallnstitute of Justice. I Permission to reproduce this B I material has been granted by Public Domajn/BTS u.s. Depari:rrent of Justice I to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permission of the ..... owner. I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ... : . 1 Findings: Comparisons Across Colorado. 2 Findings: Comparing Colorado to the Nation. 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT. 7 CHAPTER ONE .................................... 9 Colorado Replication of 1990 National Prosecutors Survey CHAPTER TWO. 37 A Comparison of Cases Prosecuted in a Sample of Judicial Districts APPENDIX ONE.
    [Show full text]
  • S:\JBC\04 Figure Setting\FY 08-09\Judicial\JUD FIG 08-09
    COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE FY 2008-09 FIGURE SETTING: JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT JBC Working Document - Subject to Change Staff Recommendation Does Not Represent Committee Decision Prepared By: Stephanie Walsh, JBC Staff March 4, 2008 For Further Information Contact: Joint Budget Committee Staff 200 E. 14th Avenue, 3rd Floor Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: (303) 866-2061 Facsimile: (303) 866-2150 (TDD 866-3472) JUDICIAL BRANCH FY 2008-09 FIGURE SETTING JBC WORKING DOCUMENT - ALL DECISIONS SUBJECT TO CHANGE Staff Recommendation Does Not Represent Committee Decision TABLE OF CONTENTS Numbers Pages . 1 Summaries & Overviews Organization of the Judicial Branch.........................................25 Summary of Decision Item Requests........................................26 General Fund Overview ..................................................27 Figure-setting Detail Judicial Department Staffing Requests ......................................30 1) Supreme Court/Court of Appeals........................................47 2) Courts Administration (A) Administration................................................50 (B) Administrative Special Purpose...................................60 (C) Integrated Information Services...................................73 3) Trial Courts.........................................................77 4) Probation and Related Services .........................................90 5) Public Defender ....................................................101 6) Alternate Defense Counsel ............................................119
    [Show full text]
  • Its Causes, Consequences, and Possible Solutions in the Colorado Court of Appeals
    Examining Delay: Its Causes, Consequences, and Possible Solutions in the Colorado Court of Appeals Nicole L. Waters, Principal Court Research Consultant Shauna M. Strickland, Project Management Administrator National Center for State Courts March 2018 State appellate courts need to resolve cases in an impartial and timely manner. This article examines case-processing times in the Colorado Court of Appeals and what steps the court took to decrease case-processing times. Why Delay Matters The Model Time Standards for State Appellate Courts note that “the timely resolution of cases is probably the most widely accepted objective measure of court operations and is also, fairly or otherwise, a primary concern of the other branches of government and the public regarding the courts.” [1] While the consequences of delay are well known, they are best summarized by Hoffman and Mahoney, who posit that “in some ways, appellate delays are especially pernicious.” > Appellate delays prolong litigation and undermine the public interest in final resolution of litigants’ disputes. Parties on appeal remain enmeshed in the disputing process and are unable to get on with their lives and businesses. > Reversal of a trial court decision or remand for further proceedings extends a dispute even longer. The longer the appellate process takes, the more likely it is that witnesses will be unavailable, memories will fade, and evidence will be stale when the case is again before the trial court. > Appellate delays affect not only the parties to the case that is delayed but also the actions of others who are involved in cases that have similar facts and issues, contributing to uncertainty in law and in business and social relationships.
    [Show full text]
  • Precedent and the Role of Unpublished Decisions
    The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process Volume 3 Issue 1 Article 19 2001 Are Some Words Better Left Unpublished?: Precedent and the Role of Unpublished Decisions K.K. DuVivier Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess Part of the Common Law Commons, and the Courts Commons Recommended Citation K.K. DuVivier, Are Some Words Better Left Unpublished?: Precedent and the Role of Unpublished Decisions, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 397 (2001). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess/vol3/iss1/19 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process by an authorized administrator of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact mmserfass@ualr.edu. ARE SOME WORDS BETTER LEFT UNPUBLISHED?: PRECEDENT AND THE ROLE OF UNPUBLISHED DECISIONS K.K. DuVivier* INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2000, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit issued a decision that, if followed nationwide, could cripple our court system. In that decision, Anastasoff v. United States,' the Eighth Circuit determined that the portion of its Rule 28A(i) providing that unpublished opinions could be cited but were not binding as precedent, was unconstitutional. The selective designation of some opinions as unpublished is a fairly recent phenomenon for courts.' However, in the two * Copyright © 2001 by K.K. DuVivier. Ms. DuVivier is an Assistant Professor and Director of the Lawyering Process Program at the University of Denver College of Law. She has been chair and vice-chair of the Colorado Bar Association's Appellate Practice Subcommittee since 1996, and she has served as the Reporter of Decisions for the Colorado Court of Appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • Denver District Court Transcript Request
    Denver District Court Transcript Request Triangled Saul sometimes amble his loggers large and dittos so maturely! Quintan Sammy molest, his cuteness struttings needs precociously. Inquiring Maximilien colonised revengefully while Tobiah always plead his sensings universalized stolidly, he ensoul so foolhardily. Transcript of the notes or application for public health officials in support ofhis motion for filling it that are encouraged to denver district court and say some Rules about the petitioner sought an agency action shall certify under the spread of record compiled by defendants offered, the period or resources to. Joint STATUS REPORT by Defendants Frank Bell, Andrea Swift, Scott Swift, Taylor Swift, Counter Claimant Taylor Swift. Written transcript requests may rebut a district court of denver probate court of such. Maricopa county courts are requesting assistance from. You should file or court? What other cases; denver district court appeal is before anderson, denver district court transcript request regarding closures or request and read as not in order foradditional details on the attorney. The court documents that he could be sent an indispensable parties, minnesota airport police identification of notice of settings across the. How can be requested transcripts would work only. At trial brief supporting facts upon to determine particularized need a motion to assist you can create unlimited civil. The bank they provide legal importance or the failure to your supervisor or her own, monday through the john doe no further order concerning his official letters. The district court likewise does not contain some changes within the state courts as of appeal, petitioners essentially a unique profile and.
    [Show full text]
  • My Meandering Path to the Bench
    DEPARTMENTSERIES | YOU BE | SUB THE TITLE JUDGE as compared to that of a trial judge, and the application process for the Court of Appeals. A Family History of Forging New Paths I was born to a family of “firsts.” My father, a Tuskegee Airman, was the first African-Ameri- can pilot to retire from a commercial airline. As the only African-American officer stationed at his base in Cambridgeshire, England, he and my mother faced daily challenges on and off the base. My mother was valedictorian of her high school class in Helen Keller’s hometown of Tuscumbia, Alabama. In 1960, after overcoming resistance from realtors and homeowners, and threatening lawsuits, we were the first Black family to purchase a home in Rye Beach, New Hampshire. Though neither of my parents had the opportunity to attend college, they knew the value of education. Even so, though I was the youngest child in our family, I was the first among my siblings to graduate from high school and the first in our family to attend and graduate from college. While I did not purposely seek My Meandering out opportunities to do so, I knew that forging new paths was often, intentionally or not, part Path to the Bench of what we did and who we were. My path to the bench became another example. BY KAREN M. ASHBY When I went to college, my plan was to major in chemistry and have a career as a forensic chemist. In my sophomore year, my plan hit a life-changing bump during my first semester of organic chemistry.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Recent Activity in Colorado Water Law
    Denver Law Review Volume 47 Issue 2 Symposium - Colorado Water Law Article 4 March 2021 A Review of Recent Activity in Colorado Water Law Gary L. Greer Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Gary L. Greer, A Review of Recent Activity in Colorado Water Law, 47 Denv. L.J. 181 (1970). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Denver Law Review at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. A REVIEW OF RECENT ACTIVITY IN COLORADO WATER LAW- BY GARY L. GREER* Recent legislative, administrative, and judicial developments have significantly modified the procedures for adjudicating and adminis- trating water rights in Colorado. In this article, Mr. Greer focuses on the procedures outlined in S. 81, noting in particular the short- comings of S. 81 with respect to the problem of integrating the priorities of surface and ground water users. He also points out the major administrative developments which stem from the conflict between the use of ground and surface water and discusses the require- ments of Fellhauer as well as subsequent decisions which deal with the promulgation of rules and regulations for the administration of waters of the state. He concludes by considering the case of United States v. District Court, wherein the Colorado Supreme Court found that the water rights of the United States were subject to the jurisdiction of the Colorado district courts under their plenary powers, and the case of Pikes Peak Golf Club, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Judicial Branch, Fiscal Year 2015 Statewide Total Appropriations ______95 TABLE of CONTENTS
    Photo Credit: Mortensen TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward ______________________________________________________________________________ i Colorado Judicial Districts Map ________________________________________________________ ii Organization Chart of the Judicial Department _________________________________________ iii I. SUPREME COURT List of Supreme Court Justices _________________________________________________________ 1 Narrative _____________________________________________________________________________ 2 Table 1: Supreme Court Caseload, Fiscal Year 1978 to Fiscal Year 2015 ______________________ 3 Table 2: Distribution of Case Filings in the Supreme Court, Fiscal Year 1991 to Fiscal Year 2015 _ 4 Table 3: Distribution by Type of Case Filed in the Supreme Court, Fiscal Year 2007 to Fiscal Year 2015 _________________________________________________________________________________ 5 Table 4: Distribution of Case Terminations, Fiscal Year 1992 to Fiscal Year 2015 _______________ 6 Table 5: Supreme Court Written Opinions, Fiscal Year 2005 to Fiscal Year 2015 _______________ 7 Table 6: Distribution of Supreme Court Cases at Issue, End of Fiscal Year 2015 ________________ 8 Table 7: Distribution of Supreme Court Cases Not at Issue, End of Fiscal Year 2015 _____________ 8 II. COURT OF APPEALS List of Court of Appeals Judges _________________________________________________________ 9 Narrative ____________________________________________________________________________ 10 Table 8: Caseload of Court of Appeals, Fiscal Year 1974 to Fiscal Year
    [Show full text]
  • QUESTION 1 Your Client, Paul Plaintiff, Is Involved in Four Different
    QUESTION 1 Your client, Paul Plaintiff, is involved in four different disputes in which he wants to file a lawsuit. All persons and entities involved are Colorado residents. The first dispute is between Plaintiff and Landscaping Company. Plaintiff hired Landscaping to install a sprinkler system at his home. The contract provided that Landscaping would install a sprinkler system for $20,000. As required by the contract, Plaintiff paid half the contract price, $10,000, before installation. Weeks have passed and Landscaping has not installed the sprinkler system. Plaintiff wants his $10,000 refunded. Landscaping refuses because Landscaping alleges that Plaintiff damaged their truck by backing into it. Landscaping claims that the damage to the truck is approximately $1 1,000. Plaintiff wants to sue Landscaping for the $10,000. If Plaintiff sues, Landscaping intends to counterclaim. The second dispute is between Plaintiff and ABar Antiques. Plaintiff contracted with ABar to buy a wooden hutch for $4,000. After the contract was executed, ABar learned that the hutch was a rare piece of furniture valued at $20,000. ABar refuses to honor the contract price. Plaintiff wants to enforce the contract because he wants the hutch. The third dispute is between Plaintiff and his wife. They have decided to file for divorce. The fourth dispute is between Plaintiff and Kim, the nanny Plaintiff hired to care for his children. Plaintiff paid Kim $1,000, in advance, for the first month she was to serve as his children's nanny. Kim never showed up for work and has not returned Plaintiffs phone calls requesting that she return the money.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules Governing Lawyer Discipline and Disability
    CHAPTER 20: RULES GOVERNING LAWYER DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY PROCEEDINGS, PROTECTIVE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, CONTINUING LEGAL AND JUDICIAL EDUCATION, ATTORNEYS’ FUND FOR CLIENT PROTECTION, AND LAWYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Rule 241. Terminology For purposes of C.R.C.P. 242 through C.R.C.P. 244, the following definitions apply: “Administrative fee” is an amount equal to the civil filing fee in Colorado district courts, which is assessed to defray the costs of proceedings under C.R.C.P. 242. “Advisory Committee” refers to the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Practice of Law, as identified in C.R.C.P. 242.3. “Complaining witness” means a person who submits a request for investigation to the Regulation Counsel under C.R.C.P. 242.13(a)(1). “Conviction” refers to any determination in a criminal matter, including at a federal, state, municipal, or other level, that a person is guilty, whether the determination rests on a verdict of guilty, a judicial finding of guilt, a plea of guilty, an Alford plea, or a plea of nolo contendere, irrespective of (1) whether entry of judgment or imposition of the sentence is suspended or deferred by the court, (2) whether the person is appealing the determination, and (3) whether sentencing has occurred. “Costs” are those costs made available in civil cases, and may include travel expenses incurred by Hearing Board members and witnesses, fees for court reporters, fees for expert witnesses, and fees for independent medical examinations. “Costs” may also include expenses incurred during an investigation. “Crime” refers to any offense that is punishable by imprisonment.
    [Show full text]
  • Oversight of Probate Cases Colorado Judicial Branch Performance Audit September 2006
    Oversight of Probate Cases Colorado Judicial Branch Performance Audit September 2006 Submitted by Clifton Gunderson LLP LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE 2006 MEMBERS Senator Jack Taylor Chair Senator Stephanie Takis Vice-Chair Representative Fran Coleman Senator Jim Isgar Representative James Kerr Senator Nancy Spence Representative Val Vigil Representative Al White Office of the State Auditor Staff Sally Symanski State Auditor Cindi Stetson Deputy State Auditor Sarah Aurich Legislative Auditor Clifton Gunderson LLP Contract Auditors A1 September 11, 2006 Members of the Legislative Audit Committee: This report contains the results of a performance audit on the oversight of probate cases in Colorado. The audit was conducted pursuant to Section 2-3-103, C.R.S., which authorizes the State Auditor to conduct audits of all departments, institutions, and agencies of state government, including the Judicial Branch. The State Auditor contracted with Clifton Gunderson LLP to conduct this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. The report presents our observations, findings, recommendations, and the responses of the Judicial Branch. Very truly yours, a1 Offices in 14 states and Washington, DC h Performance Audit on Oversight of Probate Cases Table of Contents Report Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 Recommendation Locator..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Procedure
    QUESTION 9 Paula Plaintiff, a citizen of Pennsylvania, sued Frank Franchsee, a citizen of Florida, in a federal district court in Pennsylvania. In her suit, Plaintiff alleged that by purchasing hamburger from a supplier other than her, Franchisee breached the franchise agreement between the parties. The franchise agreement stated that it was governed by Florida law. Applying Florida law, the Pennsylvania District Court held that the franchise agreement permitted Franchisee to purchase hamburger fkom other suppliers, and awarded Plaintiff nothing. A few months after the Pennsylvania District Court rendered its opinion, Plaintiff sued David Defendant, a citizen of Florida, in Florida District Court for breaching an identical franchise agreement that was the subject of the Pennsylvania suit. She alleged that Defendant had purchased hamburger from a supplier other than her and claimed damages in the amount of $30,000. Defendant argued that he was not liable to Plaintiff because of the Pennsylvania District Court's interpretation of the agreement in the earlier case against Franchisee, a party unrelated to Defendant. Defendant also filed a counterclaim alleging that he made a personal loan to Plaintiff in the amount of $25,000 several years ago, and that she failed to repay him. The Florida District Court found in favor of Plaintiff, and entered judgment in the amount of $20,000. The court ruled against Defendant on his counterclaim. Defendant has come to you for legal advice. He tells you that he does not want to appeal the judgment against him on the personal loan to Plaintiff, but that he wants to know the grounds upon which he can appeal the $20,000 judgment.
    [Show full text]