The New Law School We’Re Not Just Talking About the Redstone Building
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more
Recommended publications
-
Felix J. Kushnir Shareholder
Felix J. Kushnir Shareholder T 301-945-9298 F 301-230-2891 E [email protected] Felix Kushnir is a strategic business lawyer and advisor who represents private equity, venture capital and corporate clients in connection with mergers, acquisitions, dispositions, financings, technology transactions and joint ventures, as well as other transactional and securities matters. In 2019 and 2020, Felix advised clients in 26 M&A transactions representing over $980 million of enterprise value. Delivering more than just legal advice, Felix regularly provides introductions and guidance on partnerships and day to day business matters. As a result, he builds close relationships with his clients and is deeply involved in their businesses. In addition to mergers and acquisitions, Felix advises his clients in connection with venture capital financings, securities offerings, debt financings, recapitalizations and other strategic transactions, and he also serves as outside general counsel to industrial, government contracting, technology and emerging growth clients. One of his clients recently commented on his experience working with Felix, “Felix’s responsiveness and quick turnaround for our sensitive matter allowed us to accomplish our goals sooner than we expected and with a great result.” -client name withheld for confidentiality "We went into a sizeable M&A transaction knowing a whole lotta nothin’. Well, that’s not entirely true – we knew the legal work and negotiations were going to be complicated, labor-intensive, and stressful at times. The deal was all of those, but we realized quickly that we were in good hands with Felix Kushnir, and others on the M&A team at Shulman Rogers. -
Robson Hall Annual Mini Moot
ROBSON HALL ANNUAL MINI MOOT Gain valuable experience preparing arguments and debating on contemporary Human Rights issues To be held virtually over Zoom on MARCH 3RD & 4TH, 2021 Hosted by the Clinical Experience Committee, judged by lawyers of the Manitoba Bar Association, and sponsored by the Manitoba Law Student’s Association. All Robson Hall Law students and Master of Human Rights students are welcome to participate. Please sign up in teams of two for the side of your choice. Information Session will be held by the Clinical Experience Committee (CEC) on Wednesday February 10th from 12:00pm-1:00pm. Please see below for more information about this competition. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact: Amber Harms, CEC Chair at [email protected]. General Information The case to be argued this year is the recent 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision, Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University (2018 SCC 32). This case is an appeal by the LSBC seeking to justify its decision to not approve TWU’s proposed law school. The Charter rights engaged are s. 2(a) freedom of religion and s. 15 freedom from discrimination. You must register in teams of two and choose your side: appellants (LSBC) or respondents (TWU). • Please note that the companion case to this issue, Trinity Western University v Law Society of Upper Canada (2018 SCC 33) was decided at the same time and is largely similar, but deals with an appeal by TWU regarding the accreditation to the Law Society of Upper Canada in Ontario. -
Bingham Mccutchen, LLP
Diversity is powerful. is Diversity bingham.com Attorney Advertising © 2013 Bingham McCutchen LLP One Federal Street, Boston MA 02110 T. 617.951.8000 Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Bingham McCutchen® Bingham McCutchen, LLP 2014 VAULT/MCCA LAW FIRM DIVERSITY SURVEY One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-951-8000 Fax: 617-951-8736 www.bingham.com LOCATIONS Boston, MA; Hartford, CT; Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; Orange County, CA; Lexington, KY; San Francisco, CA; Santa Monica, CA; Silicon Valley, CA; Washington, D.C.; Beijing, China; Frankfurt, Germany; Hong Kong, Hong Kong; London, England; Tokyo, Japan DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP Head(s) of Firm: Jay Zimmerman, Chairman and CEO; Steve Browne, Firm Managing Partner Diversity team leader(s): The Diversity Committee is chaired by 12 practicing partners. Focused on strategy, these partners comprise the Diversity Executive Committee, and its three working groups: Recruiting, Attorney Retention and Development, and Leadership and Business Development. The Diversity Executive Committee works with partner, associate and staff representatives - as well as leaders of various areas (such as Recruiting, Learning and Development and Marketing) - to implement our Diversity Action Plan. The Diversity Team Leaders are: Minita Shah-Mara, Director of Diversity and Inclusion; J. Bland, Diversity Executive Committee - Legal Recruiting; Ella Foley Gannon, Diversity Executive Committee - Legal Recruiting; Thurgood Marshall Jr., Diversity Executive Committee - Legal Recruiting; Julia Frost-Davies, -
House of Representatives
HULES AND ORDERS TO BE OBSERVED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ©ommontoealtlj of JHassacijusctts, FOR THE YEAR 1850. PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE HOUSE. BOSTON: DUTTON AND WENTWORTH, STATE PRINTERS. 1850. RULES AND ORDERS OF TIIE HOUSE. CHAPTER I. I O f the Duties and Powers of the Speaker. I. T h e Speaker shall take the Chair every day at the hour to which the House shall have adjourned ; shall call the Members to order; and, on the ap pearance of a quorum, shall proceed to business. II. He shall preserve decorum and order; may speak to points of order in preference to other Members ; and shall decide all questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House by motion regularly seconded ; and no other business shall be in order till the ques tion on the appeal shall have been decided. III. He shall declare all votes; but, if any Member rises to doubt a vote, the Speaker shall order a re turn of the number voting in the affirmative, and in the negative, without any further debate upon the question. IV. He shall rise to put a question, or to address the House, but may read sitting. V. In all cases the Speaker may vote. 4 Duties of the Speaker. Ch. I. VI. When the House shall determine to go into a Committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall appoint the Member who shall take the Chair. VII. On all questions and motions whatsoever, the Speaker shall take the sense of the House by yeas and nays, provided one fifth of the Members pres ent shall so require. -
March 2, 2009 Roger P. Joseph Bingham Mccutchen
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20549 DIVISION OF INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT March 2, 2009 Roger P. Joseph Bingham McCutchen LLP One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110-1726 Re: Master Portfolio Trust-Liquid Reserves Portfolio (File No. 811-10407) and Legg Mason Partners Money Market Trust-Western Asset Money Market Fund (File No. 811-04052) Dear Mr. Joseph: Your letter ofFebruary 24,2009 requests our assurance that we would not recommend that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") take any enforcement action under Sections 17(a)(1i, 17(di and 12(d)(3)3 ofthe Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "Act"), and the rules thereunder, ifMaster Portfolio Trust and Legg Mason Partners Money Market Trust (each, a "Trust," and collectively, the "Trusts"), each ofwhich is registered with the Commission as an open-end investment company under the Act, amend the agreements and letter of credit summarized below and more fully described in the letter. Liquid Reserves Portfolio is a series ofthe Master Portfolio Trust, and the Western Asset Money Market Fund is a series ofLegg Mason Partners Money Market Trust (each a "Fund," and collectively, the "Funds"). Liquid Reserves Portfolio is a master fund in a master/feeder Section l7(a)(1) generally makes it unlawful for any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, to knowingly sell any security or other property to the registered investment company. 2 Section l7(d) generally makes it unlawful for any affiliated person ofa registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, acting as principal, to effect any transaction in which the registered investment company is a joint or joint and several participant with such person in contravention ofrules and regulations adopted by the Commission. -
Ocm39986872-1845-HB-0065.Pdf (627.7Kb)
rvo. 65. eommontomtij of iHaosactjttsettfi. House of Representatives, The Joint Special Committee, to whom was referred the sev- eral messages of his Excellency the Governor, in relation to the treatment of the Hon. Samuel Hoar, in South Carolina, and the Hon. Henry Hubbard, in Louisiana, and also an order of the House of Representatives of March 18, 1845,—have had the several subjects under consideration, and ask leave to pre- sent the annexed Report and Resolves. For the Committee, JOSEPH BELL. ■> SOUTH CAROLINA—LOUISIANA. [March, ftommontoealtfi cf JHassacijUßctts. REPORT. The Committee have already presented a full report on the treatment of the Hon. Samuel Hoar, in South Carolina; to this, on that subject, they have nothing to add. When that report was presented, official information had not been transmitted to the Committee, of the result of the mission of the Hon. Henry Hubbard to Louisiana. This has now been presented to and considered by the Committee. The subject of controversy referred to in the message of his Excellency the Governor, between Massachusetts and her sis- ter States of Louisiana and South Carolina, demand and must receive the profound consideration of every state in the Union. Massachusetts is not alone interested in this matter. It deeply and vitally concerns the whole Union, and all its parts. The claim of Massachusetts is simply that her citizens may have secured to them the personal and commercial rights guar- anteed to them by the Constitution and laws of the nation, while pursuing their lawful callings in the other slates of the Union. These rights, Louisiana and South Carolina deny to a certain description of the citizens of Massachusetts, not on account of crime charged, or proved, or committed, but simply and solely on account of origin, race and color. -
Tech Savvy Pg 7.Pmd
The BTI Tech-Savvy Team for Law Firms 2003 Published by The BTI Consulting Group, Inc. 167 Milk Street, Suite 340 Boston, MA 02109 (617) 439-0333 Best of the Best Jones Day Leaders Cooley Godward Howrey Simon Arnold & White Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Sidley Austin Brown & Wood Honorable Mentions Bingham McCutchen Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich Clifford Chance Holland & Hart Cravath, Swaine & Moore Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw Crowell & Moring Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Dewey Ballantine Rader, Fishman & Grauer Foley & Lardner Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Law Firms also Cited by Clients as Most Tech-Savvy Adams and Reese Merchant & Gould Allen & Overy Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius Alston & Bird Morrison & Foerster Andrews & Kurth Myers and Hulse Armstrong Teasdale Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Arnold & Porter Palmer & Dodge Covington & Burling Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler Faegre & Benson Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner Proskauer Rose Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi Greenberg Traurig Ryley Carlock & Applewhite Hogan & Hartson Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold Holland & Knight Shook, Hardy & Bacon Hughes & Luce Simpson Thacher & Bartlett Hunton & Williams Stroock & Stroock & Lavan Johnson, Finkel, DeLuca & Kennedy Sutherland Asbill & Brennan Jorden Burt Venture Law Group Kirkland & Ellis Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Warner Norcross & Judd Linklaters Weil, Gotshal & Manges Littler Mendelson Wiley Rein & Fielding McDermott, Will & Emery Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering McguireWoods Winston & Strawn This article reprinted with permission from The BTI Consulting Group, Inc. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved. Source: The BTI Tech-Savvy Team for Law Firms © The BTI Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved The BTI Tech-Savvy Team for Law Firms 617-439-0333 · www.bticonsulting.com. -
1 Faculty of Law / the University of Manitoba SYLLABUS CANADIAN LEGAL HISTORY History 3780/Law 3410 WINTER 2012 Delloyd
Faculty of Law / The University of Manitoba SYLLABUS CANADIAN LEGAL HISTORY History 3780/Law 3410 WINTER 2012 DeLloyd J. Guth, Ph.D. Professor of Law and Legal History Office: 305I, Robson Hall: Thursdays 11:30 a.m. ‐ 3:00 and by appointment (474‐ 6149 or 488‐7477 or email = [email protected]) Class Meets: Thursdays 4:00‐7:00 p.m., Room 204, Robson Hall (or occasionally at Guth's home). MISSION: TO EXPAND YOUR SELF‐SUFFICIENT PRIMARY EVIDENCE RESEARCH‐WRITING SKILLS AND YOUR SELF‐CONFIDENCE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF FUTURE CLIENTS AND PRESENT READERS! THIS COURSE WILL BETTER INFORM YOU ON SELECT SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL AREAS OF LAW, THEIR ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT: ABORIGINAL, ENGLISH, FRENCH, CANADIAN, MANITOBAN. PURPOSE: Canada's history has been best documented in matters legal and judicial, if only because law creates systems with procedures that construct authoritative records for human activities. This course offers both substantive and methodological contents in a chronological manner, working with primary evidence in Winnipeg's abundant legal‐judicial archives and libraries, wherever possible. REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION: This is an interdisciplinary course centered in the professional, postgraduate curriculum of the Faculty of Law, cross‐listed for credit in the Department of History. There are no course pre‐requisites. (a) Each LAW STUDENT will be graded on individual performance for TWO RESEARCH ESSAYS (25% of total course grade = 1st essay, 60% = 2nd essay), plus TWO ORAL REPORTS on assigned articles and general class participation (10%) and the “Old Bailey” criminal law case search (5%); a confidentially communicated evaluation or progress report will be available whenever the student requests it. -
United States District Court, SD California. QUALCOMM
Untitled Document 2/28/10 4:30 AM United States District Court, S.D. California. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Plaintiff. v. BROADCOM CORPORATION, Defendants. Broadcom Corporation, Counter-Claimant. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Counter-Defendant. Civil No. 05CV1392-B(BLM) May 1, 2006. Adam Arthur Bier, Christian E. Mammen, James R. Batchelder, Day Casebeer Madrid and Batchelder, Kevin Kook Tai Leung, Law Office of Kevin Kook Tai Leung, Cupertino, CA, Barry Jerome Tucker, David E. Kleinfeld, Foley & Lardner LLP, James T. Hannink, Kathryn Bridget Riley, Randall Evan Kay, Brooke Beros, Dla Piper US, Brandon Hays Pace, Heller Ehrman LLP, Heidi Maley Gutierrez, Higgs Fletcher and Mack, San Diego, CA, E Joshua Rosenkranz, Heller Ehrman, Evan R. Chesler, Richard J. Stark, Cravath Swaine and Moore LLP, Richard S. Taffet, Bingham McCutchen, New York, NY, Nitin Subhedar, Heller Ehrman, Menlo Park, CA, Jaideep Venkatesan, Heller Ehrman, Menlo Park, CA, Jason A. Yurasek, Perkins Coie LLP, San Francisco, CA, Patrick Taylor Weston, McCutchen Doyle Brown and Enersen, Walnut Creek, CA, William F. Abrams, Bingham McCutchen, East Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiff. Alejandro Menchaca, Andrew B. Karp, Brian C. Bianco, Christopher N. George, Consuelo Erwin, George P. McAndrews, Gregory C. Schodde, Joseph F. Harding, Lawrence M. Jarvis, Leonard D. Conapinski, Matthew A. Anderson, Ronald H. Spuhler, Scott P. McBride, Stephen F. Sherry, Thomas J. Wimbiscus, Jean Dudek Kuelper, McAndrews Held and Malloy, Chicago, IL, Allen C. Nunnally, Daniel M. Esrick, John J. Regan, John S. Rhee, Joseph F. Haag, Kate Saxton, Louis W. Tompros, Richard W. O'Neill, Stephen M. Muller, Vinita Ferrera, Wayne L. Stoner, William F. -
1848 George A
Methuen Jan. 4 1848 George A. Waldo Selectmen Joseph How } of Moses L. Atkinson Methuen A true copy Attest Josiah Dearborn Town Clerk. 1848 March 6, 1848 – Annual Meeting Annual meeting of the inhabitants of the Town of Methuen qualified by law to vote in Town Affairs held on Monday March the sixth 1848, agreeable to Warrant 62 File 6th Opened said meeting at ten O’clock A.M. Article 1st Chose George A. Waldo Moderator Prayer by Reverend Joseph M. Graves. Article 2nd Chose Josiah Dearborn Town Clerk. Sworn Voted that the number of Selectmen for the year ensuing, shall consist of three. Whole number of ballots for Selectmen was 290 – Necessary for choice 146 George A. Waldo had 174 votes and was chosen (sworn) Frederick Kimball had 157 votes and was chosen (sworn) No other person had a sufficient number of ballots to elect him, therefore it was Voted to adjourn for one hour. 2d Ballot for Selectmen – Whole number of ballots was 239 – Necessary for choice 120. John W. Hall had 150 and was elected/Sworn School Committee Report was read, accepted and the usual number was Voted to be printed under the direction of the School Committee. Voted that the number of the School Committee shall consist of three School Committee - Stephen Huse, Daniel Merrill 2d & O. H. Tillotson were elected. Constables. Voted that the number consist of two. John Low and Charles E. Goss were elected & sworn. Treasurer. Josiah Dearborn was elected. Collector. Josiah Dearborn was elected. Fire Wardens chosen. John Low, Kimball C. Gleason, Charles Ingalls, Daniel Merrill 3d, Frederick George. -
Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals
Florida State University Law Review Volume 32 Issue 4 Article 14 2005 Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals Michael E. Solimine [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. (2006) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol32/iss4/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW JUDICAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Michael E. Solimine VOLUME 32 SUMMER 2005 NUMBER 4 Recommended citation: Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 1331 (2005). JUDICIAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS MICHAEL E. SOLIMINE* I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1331 II. MEASURING JUDICIAL REPUTATION, PRESTIGE, AND INFLUENCE: INDIVIDUAL JUDGES AND MULTIMEMBER COURTS ............................................................... 1333 III. MEASURING THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS . 1339 IV. THE RISE AND FALL OF -
Religion and Civil Society in Massachusets: 1780-1833 Johann N
Western Washington University Western CEDAR History Faculty and Staff ubP lications History Fall 2004 The luE sive Common Good: Religion and Civil Society in Massachusets: 1780-1833 Johann N. Neem Western Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/history_facpubs Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Neem, Johann N., "The Elusive Common Good: Religion and Civil Society in Massachusets: 1780-1833" (2004). History Faculty and Staff Publications. 4. https://cedar.wwu.edu/history_facpubs/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the History at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Faculty and Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Elusive Common Good Religion and Civil Society in Massachusetts, 1780-1833 JOHANN N. NEEM In 1810, Theophilus Parsons, the Federalist chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, argued that the state need not recog- nize voluntary churches, calling the idea "too absurd to be admitted." In contrast, the modern idea of civil society is premised on the right of individual citizens to associate and for their institutions to gain the legal privileges connected with incorporation.' Federalists did not share this idea. They believed that in a republic the people's interests and the state's interests were the same, since voters elected their own rulers. JohannN. Neem, AssistantProfessor of History,Western Washington Univer- sity, is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center on Religion and Democracy at the University of Virginia. At Virginia, he thanks his adviser Peter S.