DOCSLIB.ORG

Chief Justice Shepard Lectures on State Supreme Courts As Engines of Court Reform

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chief Justice Shepard Lectures on State Supreme Courts As Engines of Court Reform The Dwight D. Opperman Institute of Judicial Administration at NYU School of Law Issue Number 4 / Summer 2006 Chief Justice Shepard Lectures on State Supreme Courts as Engines of Court Reform hat is the role of ever, state supreme courts have appellate courts in undertaken not only impor- the United States? tant legislative duties, but have These courts hear brought about significant pro- Wcases, write opinions, shape cedural and jurisprudential laws and develop doctrine. “For changes along the way.” state intermediate and federal Chief Justice Shepard circuit courts, this is a pretty delivered the Twelfth Annual respectable job description,” Justice William J. Brennan remarked The Honorable Ran- Jr. Lecture on State Courts dall T. Shepard, Chief Justice and Social Justice, “The New of the Supreme Court of Indi- Role of State Supreme Courts ana. “In the recent past, how- as Engines of Court Reform” on February 28, 2006. The Dwight D. Opperman Insti- In This Issue tute of Judicial Administra- tion, the Brennan Center for 2007 Brennan Lecture 2 Justice, and New York Uni- Appellate Justice Conference 3 versity School of Law proudly host the Brennan Lecture State Employment Law 4 series, which provokes reflec- Warren E. Burger Society 5 tion upon and celebration of the state judiciary—the bed- Chase’s Law, Culture rock of justice under law in and Ritual 6 the United States. Richard Chesler Elected Revesz, Dean of NYU School Presiding Partner 6 of Law, welcomed the guests, introducing Chief Judge IJA Community News 7 Judith S. Kaye of the New Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard York Court of Appeals, the Choi Directs Summer Fellows 8 inaugural Brennan Lecturer, of students learn about the tice and criminal law have IJA Summer Fellows 9 who in turn introduced Chief law. “State courts are com- been affected by state rul- Justice Shepard. mon fodder for training first ings. “Opinions continue to Board of Directors 10 Chief Justice Shepard noted year students to think like play a leading role in the writ- 2006–07 Calendar 11 that state supreme courts’ lawyers,” he said. Landmark ing and reading that occurs in decisions and reforms have decisions on civil unions the nation’s law schools.” How to Contact IJA 12 not only affected the judi- and gay marriage have come With the greater impor- ciary and the law, but increas- from the supreme courts of tance of the state supreme Membership Form 13 ingly influence scholarship Vermont and Massachusetts courts come more expansive IJA Membership 16 and academics, and have respectively, while changes functions and, naturally, an changed the way generations concerning medical malprac- increase in administrative Proof 3 • ICNLINJA05.4 • 07/06/06 • NC the poor. Since the 1980s, legal aid to the indigent has weakened due to fed- The 2007 Brennan Lecture eral budget cuts. States, however, have picked up the slack with programs such The Thirteenth Annual Brennan Lecture will be delivered by The Honorable Leah as IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers Trust Ward Sears, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia, on February 22, 2007. All Accounts), “pro se” legal services kiosks IJA members and alumni are invited to attend. and state sponsored pro bono services in order to ensure the lesser heard Previous Brennan Lecturers voices in society are not silenced. Fair treatment of minorities is 1995 Hon. Judith S. Kaye another issue being comprehensively Chief Judge, Court of Appeals of the State of New York addressed by state supreme courts. The 1996 Hon. Stewart G. Pollock federal government has its eye on cut- Associate Justice, Supreme Court of New Jersey ting the budgets of the Council on Legal Education (CLEO) and the Thurgood 1997 Hon. Stanley Mosk Marshall Program—both of which Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California increase the possibilities for low-income 1998 Hon. Ellen Ash Peters minorities to attend law school. The Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Connecticut Georgia, Kentucky and Indiana state 1999 Hon. George Bundy Smith supreme courts have started their own Associate Judge, Court of Appeals of the State of New York CLEO systems by creating clerkships for minorities, something that he says, 2000 Hon. Shirley S. Abrahamson “adds not only valuable experience, but Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Wisconsin valuable cachet to a legal career.” 2001 Hon. Christine M. Durham The vast changes induced by Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Utah state supreme courts don’t simply affect those who choose to enter the 2002 Hon. Thomas R. Phillips American legal system. Alaska has pio- Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Texas neered “therapeutic courts” for those 2003 Hon. Jeffrey L. Amestoy afflicted with drug addiction or mental Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Vermont illness. Florida has designated a pub- 2004 Hon. Margaret H. Marshall lic information executive to deal with Chief Justice, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts laypeople such as teachers and journal- ists in an effort to disseminate more 2005 Hon. Ronald M. George accurate legal information to the pub- Chief Justice, Supreme Court of California lic. In Connecticut, through the Open 2006 Hon. Randall T. Shepard World Program, judges from Russia Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Indiana have come to learn the rule of law in an attempt to export similar state proce- dures in foreign trial courts. responsibilities. Chief Justice Shepard jury reform during the 1990s,” he said. “There is a valuable lesson embed- noted a trend in the state judicial sys- These efforts have changed summon- ded in this assessment of the new tems of California, Iowa, Kentucky ing processes, allowed juror interaction work undertaken by these institu- and Minnesota toward “unification,” and have made juries appropriately rep- tions that used to be solely appellate wherein the entire state’s court system, resentative in regard to race and ethnic- bodies,” Chief Justice Shepard said, from top to bottom, is funded by the ity. On an administrative front, Chief looking toward the future of the state state. Previously, local trial courts were Justice Shepard’s own Indiana state supreme courts’ role in American legal funded by county governments, while court system completed the Herculean society. He also seized the opportunity the appellate courts were the financial task of compiling an unduplicated regis- to return to the past, and distilled the responsibility of the state government. ter of names and addresses of over four attitude of Justice Brennan by noting Jury selection and management has also million people eligible for jury duty, that it has always been the judiciary’s been reformed by initiatives undertaken thus streamlining the summoning pro- core responsibility “to help our fellow by state supreme courts. “Two state cess in unprecedented ways. citizens in fostering a decent, safe and high courts (Arizona and New York) States have been at the forefront of prosperous society by building a system led the way out of the comfort zone of equalizing access to legal services for of justice that befits a great nation.” n IJA Co-Hosts 005 National Conference on Appellate Justice hanks to hard work by IJA and S. Abrahamson delivered the Keynote Judge Katzmann, Chief Justice Phillips, three other major organizations, Address, Judge Robert A. Katzmann and Elliot Scherker. Kathleen McCree the 2005 National Conference of the Second Circuit and Thomas R. Lewis moderated. A breakout session on Appellate Justice, held in Phillips, until recently Chief Justice for all participants followed. Session TWashington, D.C. on November 4–6 was of the Supreme Court of Texas, were Two, “The Challenge of Volume and a huge success. IJA was pleased to have presenters on a plenary panel called the Promise of Technology,” consisted served as a co-organizer and sponsor of “No Court is An Island.” Professor of a panel discussion with panelists the Conference with the National Center Chase was the introducer of Associate Circuit Judge Susan Graber of the Ninth for State Courts, the Federal Judicial Justice Stephen Breyer, who presented Circuit, Joseph W. Hatchett, formerly Center, and the American Academy of a Saturday breakfast lecture on the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit, and Appellate Lawyers. The purpose of the current role of the Supreme Court. Judith McConnell, Presiding Justice of Conference was to provide an occasion Other IJA Board members enriched the California Court of Appeal. Arthur for the analysis of the state of appellate the conference discussions as partici- England, formerly Chief Justice of the justice thirty years after the now-leg- pants: Donald B. Ayer from Jones Day, Supreme Court of Florida, moderated endary National Conference of 1970. Thomas C. Leighton from Thomson and a second breakout session fol- The program was the product of close West, Carter G. Phillips from Sidley lowed. On Sunday morning the confer- to two years in planning by a Steering Austin Brown & Wood, Dean Kenneth ence turned to “Optimizing the Law- Committee of which Professor Oscar W. Starr of Pepperdine School of Law, Declaring Function.” Professor Paul G. Chase, Executive Co-Director of IJA and Judge Rya Zobel of the U.S. District Carrington moderated a panel discus- was a Co-Chair. In addition to provid- Court for the District of Massachusetts. sion among Professor Arthur Hellman, ing “sweat equity” IJA made a seed The Conference began on Friday Alan Morrison, Senior Lecturer at money donation early in the process. evening November 4 with an opening Stanford Law School, and Professor Financial support was also provided by reception attended by the roughly two- John B. Oakley. (Associate Justice several law firms, by LexisNexis and by hundred conferees and by newly-con- Samuel Alito had been scheduled to Thomson West. firmed Chief Justice John G. Roberts, participate as well but as he had by then Members of the IJA Board were Jr., who offered good wishes for success.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Daniel G.C. Glover Page 1 Managing IP Milestone Case of the Year for 2016
    Daniel Glover is national co-lead of our Cyber/Data Group and a Daniel G.C. member of our Intellectual Property, Privacy, Technology, Consumer Glover Products & Retail Group, Franchise & Distribution, and Appellate Groups. Partner Toronto Daniel has significant experience in all aspects of information law. His [email protected] practice takes a 360-degree approach to data: he helps clients extract the tremendous value inherent in data, while at the same time t. +1 416-601-8069 managing the complex risks associated with data. He has worked on the highest-stakes files in the field, having advised clients in relation to the three largest data breaches in Canadian history and having argued landmark cases before the Supreme Court of Canada and other leading appellate courts. Daniel G.C. His insights come from significant exposure to the many different Glover areas of law touching on the exploitation and protection information, Partner including privacy, cybersecurity, breach response, copyright and Toronto trademark infringement, privilege, anti-spam and marketing compliance, confidential information, competition law, constitutional [email protected] law, and Internet law. t. +1 416-601-8069 This exposure touches upon a broad diversity of industries. Daniel has advised numerous clients in the technology, social media, consumer Bar Admission products, retail, financial services, insurance, entertainment, gaming, automotive, industrial and health services fields, including in the class Ontario 2006 action setting and also before key privacy, health privacy, and Law School marketing regulators across Canada. University of Toronto In his litigation practice, Daniel delivered oral submissions on behalf of Practices the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and other creative industry stakeholders in the landmark decision of Appellate Litigation IP Litigation Equustek Solutions Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • CCPI Memorandum of Argument for Application to Intervene
    Court File No. A-408-09 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: NELL TOUSSAINT Appellant And MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT OF THE PROPOSED INTERVENER THE CHARTER COMMITTEE ON POVERTY ISSUES PART ONE: FACTS A. The Proposed Intervener – The Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI) 1. The Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI) was granted intervener status at the Federal Court in the present case to address “issues arising from the requirement to pay fees to process Humanitarian and Compassionate (H & C) Applications for permanent residence pursuant to the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] 1 and the impact of such fees on persons living in poverty.” 1 Decision of Prothonothary Aalto, Toronto, Ontario, March 18, 2009 IMM 2926-08. 2 2. In his decision to grant intervener status, Prothonotary Aalto stated that “CCPI and the other intervener LIFT (Low Income Families Together) would be raising arguments relating to sections 7 and 15 of the Charter as well as other arguments relating to patterns of discrimination and inequality, public policy concerns and competing demands on resources.” He found that “this is one of those unique cases that raise issues of public policy, access to justice and discrimination and inequality” such that the Court will benefit from the participation of CCPI and LIFT.2 3. CCPI seeks leave from this Honourable Court to intervene in the appeal to address these same issues as they arise in the Appeal from the Decision of Madam Justice Snider in the Federal Court (2009 FC 873). 3 B. Qualifications of CCPI 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honourable Mr. Justice Hugessen
    Date: 20080417 Docket: T-866-95 Citation: 2008 FC 497 Vancouver, British Columbia, April 17, 2008 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hugessen BETWEEN: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Applicant and HELMUT OBERLANDER Respondent Docket: T-1505-01 A-294-03 BETWEEN: HELMUT OBERLANDER Applicant (Appellant) and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/cfef0d/ Page: 2 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER Introduction [1] These reasons deal with motions for orders fixing costs brought by both parties in two distinct but closely related proceedings in this Court. The first of those proceedings was a reference made under section 18 of the Citizenship Act. Following the decision of Justice MacKay on that reference both parties made applications to him for costs orders which were by consent adjourned sine die pending the completion of revocation proceedings before the Governor in Council and the judicial review thereof. Justice MacKay having now retired, and no costs order having been made by him, each party now seeks an Order for its costs of the reference from me. [2] Mr. Oberlander also seeks certain extra-judicial costs allegedly incurred by him in the period following Justice MacKay's decision and culminating in the Governor in Council's decision to revoke his citizenship. [3] Finally, following the revocation decision by the Governor in Council, Mr. Oberlander brought judicial review proceedings which were dismissed by a judge of this Court but later allowed by the Federal Court of Appeal “with costs here and below” and I am now asked to fix the amount of such costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: a 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 Canliidocs 33319 Adam M
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 67 (2014) Article 4 Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 CanLIIDocs 33319 Adam M. Dodek Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Dodek, Adam M.. "Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 67. (2014). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol67/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit* Adam M. Dodek** 2014 CanLIIDocs 33319 The way in which Justice Rothstein was appointed marks an historic change in how we appoint judges in this country. It brought unprecedented openness and accountability to the process. The hearings allowed Canadians to get to know Justice Rothstein through their members of Parliament in a way that was not previously possible.1 — The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, PC [J]udicial appointments … [are] a critical part of the administration of justice in Canada … This is a legacy issue, and it will live on long after those who have the temporary stewardship of this position are no longer there.
    [Show full text]
  • Judgment of the Federal Court of Canada
    Date: 20180502 Docket: T-1000-15 Citation: 2018 FC 436 Ottawa, Ontario, May 2, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 5 AND 6 OF THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT, R.S.C. 1985, C. 17 (2ND SUPP.) IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 1, 6, AND 34 OF THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION CODE SET OUT IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER 11 OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and WILLIAM RALPH CLAYTON, WILLIAM RICHARD CLAYTON, DOUGLAS CLAYTON, DANIEL CLAYTON AND BILCON OF DELAWARE, INC. Respondents Page: 2 and SIERRA CLUB CANADA FOUNDATION AND EAST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION (2007) Interveners JUDGMENT AND REASONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Para I. Introduction 1 II. The Investors 7 III. The Project 8 IV. The Federal-Provincial Joint Review Panel 12 V. The Submission to Arbitration 23 VI. The Relevant Provisions of NAFTA 27 VII. The Decision of the NAFTA Tribunal 34 A. The Majority’s Decision 37 i) The Majority’s Application of the Waste Management standard 43 B. The Dissenting Opinion 52 VIII. The Issue 62 IX. The Applicable Standard of Review 64 X. Did the Tribunal Commit a Jurisdictional Error in this Case? 84 A. The Arguments of the Parties 84 B. Commentary on the Majority’s Decision 91 C. What was the Issue that the Tribunal Decided? 100 D. Did the Majority’s Award Deal with an Issue that was not Within the 106 Submission to Arbitration Made under Chapter Eleven of NAFTA? i) The Investors’ Submission to Arbitration 108 ii) Canada’s Argument Regarding the Tribunal’s Consideration of 113 Domestic Law iii) Canada’s Argument Regarding the Relevant Articles of NAFTA 125 and the Interpretative Notes iv) Analysis 130 Page: 3 Para E.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Biosketch [Pdf]
    Philip Rubin: Biographical Sketch Philip Rubin, Ph.D. is the Chief Executive Officer emeritus and former Senior Scientist at Haskins Laboratories. Haskins is a private, non-profit research institute affiliated with Yale University and the University of Connecticut that has a primary focus on the science of the spoken and written word, including speech, language, and reading. Dr. Rubin is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Surgery, Otolaryngology, at the Yale University School of Medicine, a Research Affiliate in the Department of Psychology at Yale, and a Fellow at Yale’s Trumbull College. In Dec. 2017, he was appointed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy to serve as a member of the UConn Board of Trustees, the governing body for the University of Connecticut. From 2012 through February 2015, Rubin was the Principal Assistant Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President of the United States, where he also served as Assistant Director for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, led the White House neuroscience initiative, and was a senior advisor on national policy. During that period of time he was also a Senior Advisor in the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences directorate at the National Science Foundation (NSF). He is the former co-chair of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on Science, with the Directors of the NIH and NSF, and co-chair of the interagency Common Rule Modernization Working Group. Dr. Rubin’s research spans a number of disciplines, combining computational, engineering, linguistic, physiological, and psychological approaches to study embodied cognition, most particularly the biological bases of speech and language.
    [Show full text]
  • Year in Review
    2 0 Year in Review 1Supreme 9 Court of Canada Cour suprême du Canada Find the Visit our Like us on Follow us on Supreme website at Facebook at Twitter at scc-csc.ca facebook.com/ twitter.com/SCC_eng Court of Supreme Canada CourtofCanada online! This was the very first photo ever taken of the current judges together. It was taken in the library of the Winnipeg Law Courts on September 23, 2019. © Supreme Court of Canada (2020) Front cover: Grand Hall, Supreme Court of Canada All photos (except pages 8-9, bottom photo on page 16, left-hand photos on page 17, and page 18): Supreme Court of Canada Collection Photo credits: Pages 4-5: Justices Abella and Côté – Philippe Landreville, photographer | Justice Karakatsanis – Jessica Deeks Photography | Justices Gascon, Brown, and Rowe – Andrew Balfour Photography Page 7: Cochrane Photography Page 8-9: True North Sports + Entertainment The Supreme Court of Canada emblem is a symbol of the Court as the highest judicial Page 16: Senate of Canada institution in Canada. It was designed nearly a century ago by the Page 17 - left side, top: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom distinguished Montreal architect Ernest Cormier, and can be found emblazoned Page 17 - left side, bottom: Embassy of Canada to Japan in the marble floor of the Court’s Grand Hall leading to the Main Courtroom. Page 18: Shannon VanRaes/Winnipeg Free Press As its emblem, it represents the Court’s key values of justice, independence, integrity, ISSN 2562-4776 (Online) transparency, and bilingualism. A Message from the Chief Justice When I became Chief Justice just over two years ago, I committed to making the Court more open and understandable, and to enhancing access to justice for everyone.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Court Cour Fédérale
    Federal Court Cour fédérale THE HONOURABLE SEAN J. HARRINGTON THE FEDERAL COURTS JURISDICTION CONFERENCE STEERING COMMITTEE PERSONAL REMINISCENCES At our Jurisdiction Conference Steering Committee meeting, held on Thursday, 22 July 2010, it was agreed that we should focus on the present and the future. However, it was also thought that some mention should be made of the original raison d’être of our courts and their history. As Chief Justice Lutfy is fond of pointing out, Mr. Justice Hughes and I are probably the only two sitting judges who not only appeared in the courts from day one, but also appeared in the Exchequer Court! This got me to thinking how important the Federal Courts were in my practice, and gave me a bad case of nostalgia. Maritime law has always been my speciality (although my first appearance in the Exchequer Court was before President Jackett on an Anti-Combines matter). The Federal Court had many advantages over provincial courts. Its writ ran nationwide. Cargo might be discharged in one province and delivered in another. Provincial courts were less prone at that time to take jurisdiction over defendants who could not be personally served within the jurisdiction. Provincial bars were very parochial, and in the days before inter-provincial law firms, if it were not for the Federal Court, maritime players and their underwriters sometimes had to hire two or more different law firms to pursue what was essentially one cause of action. Doc: Federal Courts_Personal Reminiscences_SJH_18-Aug-10.doc Page: 1 The Crown was a much bigger player in maritime matters in the 1970s.
    [Show full text]
  • Doctrine of Functus Officio: the Changing Face of Finality’S Old Guard
    DOCTRINE OF FUNCTUS OFFICIO: THE CHANGING FACE OF FINALITY’S OLD GUARD Anna SP Wong* The doctrine of functus officio has a very low profile in academic literature, especially juxtaposed with its doctrinal cousin, res judicata. The lack of attention belies the important role that it plays in the orderly administration of justice. This article chronicles the origins of the doctrine, its expansion into the administrative law context, and the cracks in the jurisprudence that have surfaced since Chandler v Alberta Association of Architects, a decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada called for flexible application of functus officio to administrative decision-makers. The article culminates with a proposed new framework of analysis for determining when to suspend operation of the doctrine in the administrative context. Le principe du dessaisissement du juge est rarement évoqué dans les écrits universitaires. C’est particulièrement vrai au regard de la popularité de son « cousin » doctrinal qu’est le principe de la chose jugée. L’absence d’attention dément l’importance du rôle joué par ce principe dans la bonne administration de la justice. L’auteure retrace ici les origines du principe, son expansion dans le contexte du droit administratif et les failles qui lézardent la jurisprudence depuis l’arrêt Chandler c. Alberta Association of Architects, une décision dans laquelle la Cour suprême du Canada exhortait à une application souple, aux personnes rendant des décisions administratives, du principe du dessaisissement du juge. L’article culmine avec la proposition d’un nouveau cadre d’analyse pour déterminer le moment auquel suspendre le fonctionnement de la doctrine dans le contexte administratif.
    [Show full text]
  • Removal for Criminality: Balancing Safety and Compassion
    Removal for Criminality: Balancing Safety and Compassion The Honourable Justice Russel W. Zinn1 The admission into Canada of a person is generally addressed by asking “Does the individual meet the relevant criteria or not?” It is a binary question answered by only one of two possible responses. Removal of a person from Canada who is legally in the country is far more complex, involving a tangle of interests, priorities and laws. This paper outlines the Canadian system for determining when criminality in Canada makes persons ineligible to remain in the country; a system, it is submitted, that balances safety and compassion. INTRODUCTION Canada welcomes between 240,000 and 265,000 new permanent residents each year. They come for economic reasons, family reunification, or as protected persons. At the same time, approximately 1,800 non-citizens are removed from Canada each year as a result of their criminal conduct.2 Canada is not unique in its removal of lawful residents for criminality. As was recently observed by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: “[S]tates are entitled to control the entry of aliens into their territory and their residence there.”3 Nonetheless, there are some who question whether the removal of non-citizen criminals who have spent their formative years in their adopted country is an appropriate solution to the problem of the non-citizen criminal when the identity – and accordingly behaviour – of the criminal was the product of a life spent largely, if not entirely, in the deporting state. 1 Justice of the Federal Court (Canada). My thanks to Neil Wilson, my Law Clerk from August 2010 to July 2011, for his research assistance and his insights in the writing of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Bar Association Virtual Awards Celebration
    2020 Connecticut Bar Association Virtual Awards Celebration Wednesday, July 22 Zoom Video Conference Congratulations to all of this year’s award recipients from Kronholm Insurance Services, proud Headline Sponsor of “Celebrate with the Stars.” A division of Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc. A division of Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc. 55 Capital Boulevard • Suite 102 • Rocky Hill, CT 06067 55 Capital Boulevard • Suite 102 • Rocky Hill, CT 06067 (860) 665-8463 (860) 665-8463 Leading Attorneys and Consumers to Insurance Solutions for Over 30 Years Thank You for Supporting Our Stars! Headline Sponsor Gold Sponsor Silver Sponsor Supporter Agenda Presiding Amy Lin Meyerson, President Cecil J. Thomas, President-elect Ndidi N. Moses, Immediate Past President Daniel J. Horgan, Vice President Welcome Keith J. Soressi, Executive Director Recognition Officers of the Connecticut Bar Association Board of Governors and House of Delegates members of the Connecticut Bar Association Past Presidents of the Connecticut Bar Association Past Award Recipients Headline Sponsor Comments John Kronholm, Kronholm Insurance Services Recognition of the October 2019 Pro Bono Clinic Volunteers Recognition of 50-Year Honorees Signature Awards Henry J. Naruk Judiciary Award Hon. Alvin W. Thompson, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut Edward F. Hennessey Professionalism Award Hon. Kenneth L. Shluger, New London District Superior Court Tapping Reeve Legal Educator Award Jennifer G. Brown, Interim Executive Vice President and Provost, Quinnipiac University John Eldred Shields Distinguished Professional Service Award John Rose, Jr. Charles J. Parker Legal Services Award Erin E. Kemple, Connecticut Fair Housing Center Citizen of the Law Award Audrey B. Blondin, Blondin Law Office LLC Citizen for the Law Award Judith Altmann, Holocaust Survivor and Educator Young Lawyers Section Vanguard Award Austin Berescik-Johns, Law Office of Austin B.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
    Case 3:15-cv-01528-CSH Document Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 75 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT GEORGE S. HARASZ, and DOUGLAS A. WIRTH, Plaintiffs, v. 3:15-cv-1528 JOETTE KATZ, ELIZABETH FERREIRA, TOWN OF GLASTONBURY, JAMES A. KENNEDY, and MARCH 3, 2017 WILLIAM TRANTALIS, Defendants. RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS HAIGHT, Senior District Judge: Plaintiffs commenced this civil rights action in Connecticut Superior Court. Defendants removed the case to this Court. Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 stems from Plaintiffs' claims that their rights conferred by the United States Constitution were violated by Defendants' conduct. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants acted under color of state law, giving rise to this Court's original subject matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs also allege state law claims, which fall within this Court's pendent jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. An Amended Complaint [Doc. 33] (sometimes hereinafter "AC") is the operative pleading. All Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs resist those motions. This Ruling resolves them. 1 Case 3:15-cv-01528-CSH Document Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 75 I. INTRODUCTION During the pertinent times, Plaintiffs George S. Harasz and Douglas Wirth were citizens of the United States and the State of Connecticut. They resided together in the Town of Glastonbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs advised the Connecticut Department of Children and Families ("DCF") that they were willing to take in foster children for adoption, providing that none had past sex abuse issues.
    [Show full text]