DOCSLIB.ORG

21 Winter 1994 Number 2 KENTUCKY LAW SURVEY Dedication to Professor Emeritus William R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
21 Winter 1994 Number 2 KENTUCKY LAW SURVEY Dedication to Professor Emeritus William R NORTHERN KENTUCKY LAW REVIEW Volume 21 Winter 1994 Number 2 KENTUCKY LAW SURVEY Dedication to Professor Emeritus William R. Jones David A. Elder 253 The Salmon P. Chase American Inn of Court 255 ARTICLES State Constitutional Law Survey Justice Donald C. Wintersheimer 257 Civil Procedure Judge Gregory M. Bartlett 269 1993 Kentucky Criminal Law Update Harry D. Rankin and Mary Lee Muehlenkamp 311 Workers' Compensation Update 1992-1993 Kevin King 329 A Summary of Kentucky Employment Law Decisions Michael W. Hawkins and Corey M. MacGillivray 357 Probate Law Robert J. Calvert 367 Common Sense is no Longer a Stranger in the House of Kentucky Insurance Law James R. Kruer and David J. Goetz 377 Survey of Kentucky Family Law Decisions Rendered in 1993 Lowell F. Schechter 387 Kentucky Corporate Law Developments William L. Montague and Mary Lee Muehlenkamp 413 An Ounce of Prevention: The Kentucky Hotline System Thomas L. Rouse 425 Kentucky Real Estate Law Survey: 1990 Through 1993 T. J. Brandt 435 NOTES DeGrella v. Elston: Kentucky Supreme Court Rules on an Incompe- tent's Right to Die Joseph P. Mehrle 449 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,Inc.: Sounding the Death Knell for Frye v. United States in the Commonwealth? Gregory W. Catron 475 DEDICATION TO PROFESSOR EMERITUS WILLIAM R. JONES David A. Elder* Professor William R. Jones, "Bill" to his. friends, is truly a multidimensional person with diverse interests, a diverse back- ground, and diverse friends. Bill went to law school late in the game - early middle age - after successful careers in varying busi- ness endeavors. He graduated high in his law class in the three- year program at the University of Kentucky, attaining Coif status, despite working more than full-time. Shortly thereafter he went to the University of Michigan as a prestigious Cook Fellow, receiving the LL.M. in 1970. Bill taught at the University of Indiana School of Law, Indi- anapolis, for a decade (with a couple of years off as a visitor elsewhere) before coming to Chase College of Law as its Dean in 1980. I will never forget my own first impression of Bill during the interview process and I finally put to him semi-humorously the question I had been considering since first meeting him- was the resume in error or was this youthful, energetic, intellec- tually curious person actually approaching retirement age?! He laughed and said the resume contained no inaccuracies! The Bill Jones we saw in the interview remained that way throughout his five plus years as our Dean. He was forthright, honest, consistent, open-minded and, most of all, fair. Bill had been hired as Dean, in large part, to ensure that Chase College of Law was approved for membership in the prestigious Association of Amer- ican Law Schools. With this in mind he achieved a consensus on what was required -through task forces, a faculty retreat, and much spirited discussion-and made his resulting expectations of faculty eminently clear. He demanded quality endeavors and productivity from the faculty and was successful in his primary goal-Chase College of Law received AALS accreditation at the January meeting in 1983. Throughout the process Bill provided * Professor of Law, Salmon P. Chase College of Law; A.B., Bellarmine; J.D., St. Louis; LL.M., Columbia. 254 NORTHERN KENTUCKY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 21:253 consistent, fair, and determined leadership -doing in an exem- plary fashion what he was hired to do. After his tenure as Dean, Bill joined the faculty as a stimulating colleague and respected faculty member. Following the expecta- tions he had set for all faculty, he produced two leading Kentucky texts -Kentucky Criminal Trial Practice,Kentucky Criminal Trial Practice Forms-which have been regularly supplemented and reissued. Bill also remained heavily involved in both service to the law school, serving as chair of several important committees, and in service in the public sector, functioning as member and, later, long-term chair of the Kentucky Public Advocacy Commis- sion and in numerous ways in the A.B.A. accreditation process and in the Law School Admissions Council. When compelled to retire under University policy, Bill decided to open a new career-buying, restoring, and reselling old homes. This he did with the same joie de vivre, enthusiasm, and compe- tence with which he approaches all challenges. And, next year, he is teaching as a visitor at Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center. His students and colleagues there will benefit greatly from his wit, sense of humor, calm and reasoned judgment, and his fertile mind and pen. I wish him luck there and hope he returns to rejoin us here a year later-as friend, mentor, and colleague. And, perhaps, most of all, as a ready reminder that age bears little or no resemblance to vitality and creativity. THE SALMON P. CHASE AMERICAN INN OF COURT The Salmon P. Chase American Inn of Court was founded in 1993 in honor of the one-hundredth anniversary of the founding of the Salmon P. Chase College of Law. Justice Donald Winter- sheimer, Judge William Bertelsman, Professor Robert Bratton, E. Andre Busald, Esq., and Wm. T. Robinson III, Esq. submitted an application for a charter in the early part of 1993. A charter was granted on June 11, 1993 at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the American Inns of Court in Chicago, Illinois. The American Inns of Court concept is designed to improve the skills, professionalism, and legal ethics of the Bench and Bar. The American Inns have adopted the traditional British model of legal apprenticeship. For centuries, young British barristers have learned the art of trial advocacy from senior members of their profession in the Inns of Court, a place where students aspiring to the Bar resided while working with experienced practitioners in the office and the court. The Inns have changed somewhat, but still serve as the home of the British legal pro- fession. The American Inn concept was the product of a discussion in the late 1970s among the United States members of the Anglo- American exchange of lawyers and judges, including Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. In 1980, the first American Inn of Court was created. In 1983, Chief Justice Burger created a Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States to explore whether the American Inn concept was of value to the administration of justice in federal court. The Committee proposed a national organization: the American Inns of Court Foundation. In 1985, the Foundation was created. At present, there are 154 American Inns of Court nationally, located in 42 states and the District of Columbia, with some 9,000 judges, trial lawyers, and graduating law students involved as active members. The founders of the American Inns modified the concept to fit the particular needs of the American legal system in an attempt to help trial and appellate lawyers and judges rise to higher levels of excellence, professionalism, and ethical awareness. Each American Inn of Court is comprised of three categories of mem- bers: Masters of the Bench, including judges, experienced master litigating lawyers, and law professors; Barristers, consisting of 256 NORTHERN KENTUCKY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 21:255 less experienced lawyers; and Pupils, consisting of third-year law students. Members are grouped into "Pupilage Teams," with each team consisting of one or two Master litigators, one or two Barristers, and Pupils. Each Pupilage team is responsible for conducting one demonstration for the Inn per year. The Salmon P. Chase American Inn of Court holds monthly meetings centering around a presentation focusing on a particular segment of the litigation process-from voir dire to closing ar- guments. These presentations are followed by discussion and critique, providing all members with the opportunity to offer their views and gain insight into the perspectives of other mem- bers of the Inn. The Salmon P. Chase College of Law celebrated its one-hun- dredth year of operation on October 16, 1993. It was appropriate to celebrate this centennial event with the establishment of the Salmon P. Chase American Inn of Court. Donna M. Bloemer, Issue Editor ARTICLES STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SURVEY by Justice Donald C. Wintersheimer* I. INTRODUCTION Since we last visited the subject of state constitutional law in the previous issue of the Northern Kentucky Law Review's Ken- tucky Law Survey, many interesting cases have arisen.1 As noted in my original article,2 there are some important principles that must be kept in mind when considering Kentucky constitutional law issues. [T]he state constitution is a charter of law and government which provides in detail the structure and function of state government. The Federal Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers upon which all exercises of federal authority must be based. In contrast, state constitutions serve as a limitation on the otherwise sovereign power of the state to make laws and govern themselves. Whereas, the powers delegated to the federal government [by the people] are few and defined, those which remain in state government are [generally] numerous and indefinite.' Under these general guidelines, set out in our previous discus- sion, I will review some of the more interesting state constitu- tional law decisions. II. THE DECISIONS A. Jural Rights Revisited In my first survey of Kentucky constitutional law in the North- ern Kentucky Law Review, I briefly reviewed the questions of * The Honorable Donald C. Wintersheimer is an Associate Justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court and is Distinguished Jurist in Residence at Salmon P. Chase College of Law. (B.A., Thomas More College; M.A., Xavier University; J.D., University of Cincinnati). 1. See Donald C. Wintersheimer, State Constitutional Law, 20 N.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amending and Revising State Constitutions J
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 35 | Issue 2 Article 2 1947 Amending and Revising State Constitutions J. E. Reeves University of Kentucky Kenneth E. Vanlandingham University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Reeves, J. E. and Vanlandingham, Kenneth E. (1947) "Amending and Revising State Constitutions," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 35 : Iss. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol35/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMENDING AND REVISING STATE CONSTITUTIONS J. E. REEVES* and K-ENNETii E. VANLANDINGHAMt Considerable interest in state constitutional revision has been demonstrated recently. Missouri and Georgia adopted re- vised constitutions in 1945 and New Jersey voted down a pro- posed revision at the general election in 1944. The question of calling a constitutional convention was acted upon unfavorably by the Illinois legislature in May, 1945, and the Kentucky legis- lature, at its 1944 and 1946 sessions, passed a resolution submit- ting" the question of calling a constitutional convention to the people of the state who will vote upon it at the general election in 1947. The reason for this interest in revision is not difficult to detect.
    [Show full text]
  • Reporters Handbook
    For Additional Copies Thanks to a grant from the State Justice Insti- tute, copies of this handbook will be provided at no charge as a service to Kentucky journal- ists. To request additional copies of this hand- book, contact: Office of Public Information Administrative Office of the Courts 100 Millcreek Park Frankfort, KY 40601 502-573-2350 or 800-928-2350 [email protected] Copies also available on www.kycourts.net Reporter’s Handbook on Covering Kentucky Courts First Edition, April 2004 This handbook was developed under a grant from the State Justice Institute. Points of view expressed in this handbook are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute or other organizations that contributed to it. Acknowledgments he Reporter’s Handbook on Covering T Kentucky Courts was produced as part of the 2003-2004 Bench/Media Program of the Kentucky Court of Justice. It was developed by the Court of Justice, the Kentucky Press Association and the Kentucky Broadcasters Association under a grant from the State Justice Institute. This project was made possible through the ongoing support of Chief Justice of Kentucky Joseph E. Lambert, who has consistently promoted better understanding of the roles of the courts and the media in our democracy, and by the contributions of the journalists and lawyers who comprise the Handbook Advisory Committee: Bob Schulman Handbook Committee Chair; Veteran Journalist and Commentator Ed Staats Handbook Co-Editor; Former Chief of Bureau, Associated Press/Kentucky David M. Wilkison Handbook Co-Editor; Former Chief of Bureau, Associated Press/Kentucky Linda Sorenson Ewald Associate Dean, University of Louisville Louis D.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______
    NO. 19-__ In the Supreme Court of the United States ________________ COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Petitioner, v. MICHEAL BACA, POLLY BACA, AND ROBERT NEMANICH, Respondents. ________________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ________________ PHILIP J. WEISER GRANT T. SULLIVAN Attorney General Assistant Solicitor General ERIC R. OLSON LEEANN MORRILL Solicitor General First Assistant Attorney Counsel of Record General Office of the Colorado Attorney General 1300 Broadway, 10th Floor Denver, Colorado 80203 [email protected] (720) 508-6000 Counsel for Petitioner QUESTIONS PRESENTED Like most States, Colorado requires its presidential electors to follow the will of its voters when casting their Electoral College ballots for President. In the 2016 Electoral College, one of Colorado’s electors violated Colorado law by attempting to cast his presidential ballot for a candidate other than the one he pledged to vote for. Colorado removed him as an elector, declined to accept his ballot, and replaced him with an alternate elector who properly cast her ballot for the winner of the State’s popular vote, consistent with Colorado law. The removed elector later sued Colorado for nominal damages. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a presidential elector who is prevented by their appointing State from casting an Electoral College ballot that violates state law lacks standing to sue their appointing State because they hold no constitutionally protected right to exercise discretion. 2. Does Article II or the Twelfth Amendment forbid a State from requiring its presidential electors to follow the State’s popular vote when casting their Electoral College ballots.
    [Show full text]
  • School Choice and State Constitutions
    School Choice and State Constitutions A joint publication of The Institute for Justice and The American Legislative Exchange Council by Richard D. Komer and Clark Neily reference guide School Choice and State Constitutions A Guide to Designing School Choice Programs The Institute for Justice and The American Legislative Exchange Council April 2007 by Richard D. Komer and Clark Neily table of contents Foreword 1 Introduction 2 How to Use This Report 7 State Summaries Alabama 10 Alaska 11 Arizona 12 Arkansas 14 California 15 Colorado 17 Connecticut 19 Delaware 21 Florida 22 Georgia 24 Hawaii 26 Idaho 27 Illinois 29 Indiana 31 Iowa 33 Kansas 34 Kentucky 35 Louisiana 38 table of contents Maine 39 Maryland 41 Massachusetts 42 Michigan 44 Minnesota 46 Mississippi 48 Missouri 49 Montana 52 Nebraska 53 Nevada 55 New Hampshire 56 New Jersey 57 New Mexico 58 New York 60 North Carolina 62 North Dakota 64 Ohio 65 Oklahoma 67 Oregon 69 Pennsylvania 70 Rhode Island 72 South Carolina 73 South Dakota 75 Tennessee 77 Texas 78 Utah 79 Vermont 81 Virginia 82 Washington 84 West Virginia 87 Wisconsin 88 Wyoming 91 Model Legislation 93 Glossary 95 Additional Resources 97 About the Authors 99 Acknowledgments 100 About IJ 101 About ALEC 102 foreword Whenever school choice legislation is considered, the stakes are enormous. Children, parents, teachers and taxpayers all stand to benefit dramatically from well-designed programs. That’s why it is so important for all school choice legislation to be very carefully crafted, starting with an eye toward its constitutionality under relevant state constitutional provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Amendments to Texas Code of Judicial Conduct
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Misc. Docket No. 97 - 9186 ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT ORDERED: The Supreme Court of Texas this day adopts amendments to Canon 4, Canon 5, and Canon 6 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The amendment to Canon 4 will be effective January 1, 1998. The amendments to Canons 5 & 6 will be effective January 1, 1999. Canon 4 CONDUCTING THE JUDGE'S EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Extra-judicial activities in General. A judge shall conduct all of the judge's extra- judicial activities so that they do not: (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge; or (2) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. B. "-•aea`=om' Activities to Improve the Law. A judge may; LU speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in extra-judicial activities concerning the law, the legal system, the administration ofjustice and non-legal subjects, subject to the requirements of this Code; andY Page 1 of 3 (2) serve as a member, officer, or director of an organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal s s^ or the administration of justice A judge may assist such an organization in raising funds and may participate in their management and investment, but should not personally participate in public fund raising activities . He or she may make recommendations to public and private fund-granting agencies on projects and programs concerning the law, the le gal system, and the administration of justice Canon 5 (4) A judge shall resign from judicial office upon becoming a candidate in a contested election for a non-judicial office either in a primarv or in a general or in a special election .
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Right to a Remedy
    SPEECH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A REMEDY THOMAS R. PHILLIPS* Of all the rights guaranteed by state constitutions but absentfrom the federal Bill of Rights, the right to a remedy through open access to the courts may be the most important. The remedy clause, which appears in the constitutions of forty states, usually takes one of two basic forms, but courts have interpreted and applied the clause in a variety of different and often contradictory ways. In this address, Chief Justice Phillips traces the development of the remedy guarantee from its inception in Magna Carta and explication by Coke and Blackstone. Many framers of the originalstate constitutions in colonial America adopted this guarantee as their own, recognizing it as a constraint on both judicial and legislative power. The Chief Justice examines subsequent judicial interpretations of the remedy clause as a potential check on legislative action limiting tort recoveries, particularly in the employment, construction, and medical malpractice contexts. Although he offers several reasons for caution against too robust a reading of the clause, the Chief Justice ultimately posits an approach that aims to protect absolute rights through equal access to justice, while urging state appellate courts to develop a coherent doctrine of remedies jurisprudence that reflects the continuing importance of the right to a remedy. INTRODUCTION The American Bill of Rights, to which United States Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan was so devoted, is one of the supreme achievements of the human spirit. In ten concise paragraphs, it encapsulates most of the basic rights and freedoms that most of the world now regards as the basis of individual liberty and human dig- nity.1 But Justice Brennan, for one, never forgot that every American had even more protection from government oppression.
    [Show full text]
  • British Statutes in American Jurisdictions 197
    December, 1929 BRITISH STATUITES IN AMERICAN JURISDICTIONS FREDERICKI G. MCKEAN, JR. The abstraction called the Law is a magic mirror wherein we see reflected not only our own lives, but the lives of all men that have been.-Attributed to Mr. Jus- tice Holmes. It has been said that man differs from other animals chiefly in this: that he retains in each generation that which has been handed down by its predecessor,, and, after applying the touchstone of experience, passes it to his successors. This commonplace has been phrased in the folk saying, "Experience is the best teacher", and in the legal aphorism that "the life of the law has been-experi- ence". An outstanding characteristic of the founding of this re- public was the tenacity with which our forefathers clung to their inheritance of the laws which their immigrant ancestors brought into the New World and adapted to the requirements of changed environment. John Adams is credited with the statement that he would not have taken the stand that he did in the War for Inde- pendence, if such action had involved the loss of the common law. Chief Justice Taft says, "We embodied in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution the principles of the British Constitution as they had. been established at the Common Law."' At the threshold of the Revolution the American Continental Congress of 1774, under the presidency of George Washington, adopted this resolution: "Resolved, N. C. D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more espe- cially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.
    [Show full text]
  • MIDNIGHT JUDGES KATHRYN Turnu I
    [Vol.109 THE MIDNIGHT JUDGES KATHRYN TuRNu I "The Federalists have retired into the judiciary as a strong- hold . and from that battery all the works of republicanism are to be beaten down and erased." ' This bitter lament of Thomas Jefferson after he had succeeded to the Presidency referred to the final legacy bequeathed him by the Federalist party. Passed during the closing weeks of the Adams administration, the Judiciary Act of 1801 2 pro- vided the Chief Executive with an opportunity to fill new judicial offices carrying tenure for life before his authority ended on March 4, 1801. Because of the last-minute rush in accomplishing this purpose, those men then appointed have since been known by the familiar generic designation, "the midnight judges." This flight of Federalists into the sanctuary of an expanded federal judiciary was, of course, viewed by the Republicans as the last of many partisan outrages, and was to furnish the focus for Republican retaliation once the Jeffersonian Congress convened in the fall of 1801. That the Judiciary Act of 1801 was repealed and the new judges deprived of their new offices in the first of the party battles of the Jeffersonian period is well known. However, the circumstances surrounding the appointment of "the midnight judges" have never been recounted, and even the names of those appointed have vanished from studies of the period. It is the purpose of this Article to provide some further information about the final event of the Federalist decade. A cardinal feature of the Judiciary Act of 1801 was a reform long advocated-the reorganization of the circuit courts.' Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the judicial districts of the United States had been grouped into three circuits-Eastern, Middle, and Southern-in which circuit court was held by two justices of the Supreme Court (after 1793, by one justice) ' and the district judge of the district in which the court was sitting.5 The Act of 1801 grouped the districts t Assistant Professor of History, Wellesley College.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the New Hampshire Federal Courts
    HISTORY OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE FEDERAL COURTS Prepared by the Clerk’s Office of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire - 1991 1 HISTORY OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE FEDERAL COURTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE & ACKNOWLEDGMENT .......................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7 THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT ................................................................................ 11 Time Line for the Circuit Court and Related Courts ................................................................ 19 JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ......................................................................................... 20 John Lowell ............................................................................................................................... 20 Benjamin Bourne ...................................................................................................................... 21 Jeremiah Smith.......................................................................................................................... 21 George Foster Shepley .............................................................................................................. 22 John Lowell ............................................................................................................................... 23 Francis Cabot Lowell ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Malpractice
    Legal Malpractice This issue of the Kentucky Bar Association’s Bench & Bar was published in the month of Janaury. Publications Committee Edwin S. Hopson, Chair, Louisville Paul Alley, Florence Mindy Barfield, Lexington Gregory M. Bartlett, Covington Sandra A. Bolin, Berea Michael A. Breen, Bowling Green Beverly M. Burden, Lexington Christopher S. Burnside, Louisville Frances Catron-Malone, Frankfort David C. Condon, Owensboro P. Franklin Heaberlin, Prestonsburg Sheryl E. Heeter, Newport Judith B. Hoge, Louisville Susan H. Kosse, Louisville Edna M. Lowery, Frankfort Theodore T. Myre, Jr., Louisville Eileen M. O’Brien, Lexington CONTENTS Brian K. Pack, Glasgow Sandra J. Reeves, Corbin E.P. Barlow Ropp, Glasgow Candace J. Smith, Covington LEGAL MALPRACTICE E. Frederick Straub, Jr., Paducah Gerald R. Toner, Louisville John A. West, Covington 5 Lawyer Regulation and the Movement Toward Michele M. Whittington, Frankfort A Unified Bar in Kentucky By Jane H. Herrick Publisher Bruce K. Davis 11 Legal Malpractice in Kentucky By Del O’Roark & Pete Gullett Editor Edwin S. Hopson 19 Legal Malpractice Primer By O. Daniel Wolff Managing Editor Barbara L. Thomas Departments The Bench & Bar (ISSN-1521-6497) is 3 President’s Page By Robert C. Ewald published bi-monthly by the Kentucky Bar Association, 514 West Main Street, Frankfort, 24 Hot Topic Partnership and Limited Partnership Acts - Part I KY 40601-1812. Periodicals Postage paid at By Dean Allan W. Vestal & Thomas E. Rutledge Frankfort, KY and additional mailing offices. All manuscripts for publication should be 29 Book Review By Sheryl G. Snyder sent to the Managing Editor. Permission is granted for reproduction with credit.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit As of 4/28/2020
    Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 4/28/2020 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Jeffrey R. Howard 0 Kermit Victor Lipez (Snr) Sandra L. Lynch Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby (Snr) 0 Jon David Levy George Z. Singal (Snr) Nancy Torresen John A. Woodcock, Jr. (Snr) United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs 0 Denise Jefferson Casper Timothy S. Hillman Mark G. Mastroianni George A. O'Toole, Jr. (Snr) Michael A. Ponsor (Snr) Patti B. Saris F. Dennis Saylor Leo T. Sorokin Richard G. Stearns Indira Talwani Mark L. Wolf (Snr) Douglas P. Woodlock (Snr) William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Paul J. Barbadoro 0 Joseph N. Laplante Steven J. McAuliffe (Snr) Landya B. McCafferty Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 4/28/2020 United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Francisco Augusto Besosa 0 Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez Daniel R. Dominguez (Snr) Jay A. Garcia-Gregory (Snr) Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez (Snr) United States District Court District of Rhode Island Mary M. Lisi (Snr) 0 John J. McConnell, Jr. William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Jose A. Cabranes 0 Guido Calabresi (Snr) Denny Chin Christopher F. Droney (Ret) Peter W. Hall Dennis Jacobs (Snr) Pierre N. Leval (Snr) Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Gerard E. Lynch (Snr) Jon O. Newman (Snr) Barrington D. Parker, Jr. (Snr) Reena Raggi (Snr) Robert D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Privacy Paradox: the Divergent Paths of the United States Supreme Court and State Courts on Issues of Sexuality
    THE PRIVACY PARADOX: THE DIVERGENT PATHS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND STATE COURTS ON ISSUES OF SEXUALITY M ELANIE D. PRICE* The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.1 INTRODUCTION As the Warren Court evolved into the Rehnquist Court, individuals seeking constitutional redress and expanded privacy protections became increasingly frustrated with the United States Supreme Court. The Warren Court provided a high water mark for expanded privacy protections which continued to some degree during the Burger Court. However, the Reagan appointees, now with Chief Justice William Rehnquist at the helm, used the winds to sail in a different direction, retreating from the expansive constitutional interpretations used to protect individual privacy in the Warren Court era. Sensing the change in course, commentators began calling for state court judges to seek out independent meaning from their individual state constitutions.2 A handful of states responded by amending their constitutions to expand protections, while other state courts used expansive interpretations of long-standing constitutional provisions of their individual charters. The array of protections varies dramatically based on the individual state constitutional framework. For instance, Oregon looked to its constitution to find that obscenity, while unprotected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, is protected under its constitution;3 and Vermont more recently found that school vouchers violate the compelled support clause of its state constitution,4 while the issue is unresolved under the Federal Constitution. Earlier this century, the U.S.
    [Show full text]