DOCSLIB.ORG

Fundamentals of Oregon Civil Trial Procedure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fundamentals of Oregon Civil Trial Procedure Fundamentals of Oregon Civil Trial Procedure Cosponsored by the Litigation Section Thursday, October 12, 2017 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m. Friday, October 13, 2017 9 a.m.–12:30 p.m. 9.75 General CLE or Practical Skills credits FUNDAMENTALS OF OREGON CIVIL TRIAL PROCEDURE SECTION PLANNERS Ben Eder, Thuemmel Uhle & Eder, Portland Steven Lovett, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland Kimberly Stuart, Washington County, Hillsboro Jennifer Wagner, Stoll Berne, Portland OREGON STATE BAR LITIGATION SECTION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Reneé E. Rothauge, Chair Scott C. Lucas, Chair-Elect John R. Bachofner, Past Chair Jeanne F. Loftis, Treasurer Kimberly Anne S. Y. Stuart, Secretary Peter L. Barnhisel The Honorable Matthew Donohue Gilion C. Dumas Ben Eder Lindsey H. Hughes Steven T. Lovett The Honorable Josephine H. Mooney Jennifer S. Wagner Kate Anne Wilkinson Xin Xu The materials and forms in this manual are published by the Oregon State Bar exclusively for the use of attorneys. Neither the Oregon State Bar nor the contributors make either express or implied warranties in regard to the use of the materials and/or forms. Each attorney must depend on his or her own knowledge of the law and expertise in the use or modification of these materials. Copyright © 2017 OREGON STATE BAR 16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road P.O. Box 231935 Tigard, OR 97281-1935 Fundamentals of Oregon Civil Trial Procedure ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Schedule . v Faculty . vii 1. The Art of Drafting Complaints and Answers—Presentation Slides . 1–i — Steve Larson, Stoll Berne PC, Portland, Oregon 2. Mastering the Discovery Basics in State Court—Presentation Slides . 2–i — Courtney Angeli, Buchanan Angeli Altschul Sullivan LLP, Portland, Oregon 3. The Art and Science of Depositions . 3–i — David Eder, Thuemmel Uhle and Eder, Portland, Oregon — Joel Sturm, Law Office of Barry J. Goehler, Portland, Oregon 4. Seeking Preliminary Injunctive Relief—When, Why, and How . 4–i — Steven Lovett, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, Oregon 5. Mastering Key Pretrial Motions—Presentation Slides . 5–i — Sarah Crooks, Perkins Coie, Portland, Oregon 6. Documenting Settlement Agreements: Best (and Worst) Practices. 6–i — Adam Starr, Markowitz Herbold PC, Portland, Oregon 7. Handling the “Half-se” Hearing . 7–i — The Honorable Mustafa Kasubhai, Lane County Circuit Court, Eugene, Oregon 8. Anatomy of a Trial . 8–i — Dennis Rawlinson, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP, Portland, Oregon — Judy Snyder, Law Offices of Judy Snyder, Portland, Oregon 9. Obtaining and Collecting a Judgment—Show Me the Money!. 9–i — John Bachofner, Jordan Ramis PC, Vancouver, Washington 10. Protecting Your Appeal. 10–i — The Honorable Rives Kistler, Oregon Supreme Court, Salem, Oregon — The Honorable Lynn Nakamoto, Oregon Supreme Court, Salem, Oregon — The Honorable Janice Wilson, Senior Judge, Portland, Oregon 11. Closing Argument—Presentation Slides . .11–i — John Coletti, Paulson Coletti, Portland, Oregon Fundamentals of Oregon Civil Trial Procedure iii Fundamentals of Oregon Civil Trial Procedure iv SCHEDULE Thursday, October 12 7:30 Registration 8:30 The Art of Drafting Complaints and Answers F Framing your client’s case F Stating a claim for relief or affirmative defense F Where to file and why Steve Larson, Stoll Berne PC, Portland 9:15 Mastering the Discovery Basics F Discovery requests F Subpoenas F Other general discovery provisions Courtney Angeli, Buchanan Angeli Altschul Sullivan LLP, Portland 10:00 Break 10:15 Tips for Taking and Defending a Deposition F How to prepare a client for deposition F What questions to ask and how to ask them F Setting up effective impeachment F Dealing with difficult opposing counsel David Eder, Thuemmel Uhle and Eder, Portland Joel Sturm, Law Office of Barry J. Goehler, Portland 11:00 Seeking Preliminary Injunctive Relief—When, Why, and How F Motion for temporary restraining order F Preliminary injunction motion Steven Lovett, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland 11:30 Lunch 12:30 Mastering Key Pretrial Motions F Motions to dismiss F Discovery disputes F Motions for summary judgment Sarah Crooks, Perkins Coie, Portland 1:30 Documenting Settlement Agreements: Best (and Worst) Practices F Material terms F Compromises F Challenges to enforceability Adam Starr, Markowitz Herbold PC, Portland 2:30 Break Fundamentals of Oregon Civil Trial Procedure v SCHEDULE (Continued) 2:45 Courtroom Conduct: What You Can Do Versus What You Should Do F Challenges working with a pro se litigant F Challenges working with difficult opposing counsel F This is what the judge sees when you do this . The Honorable Mustafa Kasubhai, Lane County Circuit Court, Eugene 3:15 Closing Argument F Purpose of closing: what are you trying to accomplish? F Anatomy of a closing F Embracing the burden of proof F Rebuttal arguments: bring it home John Coletti, Paulson Coletti, Portland 4:30 Adjourn Friday, October 13 8:30 Late Registration 9:00 Anatomy of a Trial F How to develop a trial theme F The most powerful way to conduct an opening statement F The real purpose of closing argument F Why less is more . when it comes to trial Dennis Rawlinson, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP, Portland Judy Snyder, Law Offices of Judy Snyder, Portland 10:35 Break 10:45 Show Me the Money—Obtaining and Collecting Your Client’s Judgment F Obtaining a proper judgment or confirming an arbitration award F Using creditor rights to locate and collect assets to satisfy your client’s judgment John Bachofner, Jordan Ramis PC, Vancouver 11:30 Protecting Your Appeal F Trial judges’ perspective on preservation of error F Helpful tips for new practitioners when preparing for appeal at the trial level The Honorable Rives Kistler, Oregon Supreme Court, Salem The Honorable Lynn Nakamoto, Oregon Supreme Court, Salem The Honorable Janice Wilson, Senior Judge, Portland 12:30 Adjourn Fundamentals of Oregon Civil Trial Procedure vi FACULTY Courtney Angeli, Buchanan Angeli Altschul Sullivan LLP, Portland. Ms. Angeli has extensive experience litigating employment cases and providing comprehensive employment law counseling and training to employers. She is past president of the Federal Bar Association Oregon Chapter and a member of the Owen M. Panner American Inn of Court. She holds a Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) certification from the Human Resources Certification Institute. She is a regular speaker and writer on employment law issues and has made numerous joint presentations with federal judges for the Federal Bar Association. She received the 2013 Honorable James M. Burns Federal Practice Award. Ms. Angeli is admitted to practice in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska (inactive). John Bachofner, Jordan Ramis PC, Vancouver. Mr. Bachofner chairs Jordan Ramis PC’s Litigation Group, and his practice focuses on litigation and jury trials, as well as on insurance coverage, product liability, general business, bankruptcy, and creditors’ rights issues. He is a member of the Oregon State Bar: Board of Governors, chair of the Oregon State Bar Litigation Section, a member of the Oregon Casualty Adjusters Association, a member of the Oregon Association of Defense Counsel, chair of the Oregon Council on Court Procedures, and a member of the Defense Research Institute. Mr. Bachofner is admitted to practice in Oregon and Washington. John Coletti, Paulson Coletti, Portland. Mr. Coletti limits his practice to representing seriously injured people in cases involving defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, and negligence. He is a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates, the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, the American Board of Trial Advocates, the International Society of Barristers, the American Association for Justice, the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association, and the Washington State Association for Justice. Mr. Coletti has served as an adjunct professor of Advanced Trial Advocacy at Lewis and Clark Law School. He is admitted to practice in Oregon and Washington. Sarah Crooks, Perkins Coie, Portland. Ms. Crooks practices business and commercial litigation with an emphasis on defense of class actions. She has an active trial practice, representing companies and individuals in a wide variety of complex business disputes and class action lawsuits in state and federal courts across several industries, including technology, consumer products, financial, and telecommunications. As a volunteer attorney with Legal Aid Services of Oregon, Ms. Crooks represents victims of domestic violence at protective order hearings. She is a member of the Owen M. Panner Inn of Court, past president of Oregon Women Lawyers, past president of the National Conference of Women’s Bar Associations, and past president of the Multnomah Bar Association. Ms. Crooks has received the Oregon Bench and Bar Commission Justice Edwin J. Peterson Professionalism Award and the Oregon Women Lawyers Justice Betty Roberts Award. David Eder, Thuemmel Uhle and Eder, Portland. Mr. Eder practices in the areas of personal injury, DUII defense, and criminal law. He previously was an assistant city attorney with the City of Beaverton, handling thousands of vehicle-related cases as well as civil litigation and major crimes work. In 2011, he served as an instructor at the National Advocacy Center on the topic of jury selection. He is past chair of the Oregon New Lawyers Division. In 2010, he developed a program to help underemployed and unemployed lawyers receive training from nonprofit organizations; the program was named as the American Bar Association Young Lawyer Section Program of the Year. The Honorable Mustafa Kasubhai, Lane County Circuit Court, Eugene. Judge Kasubhai was appointed to the bench by Governor Kulongoski in 2007. He previously worked as an active civil trial litigator specializing in tort litigation and workers’ compensation. In addition to Judge Kasubhai’s general trial court assignment, he regularly serves as a settlement judge for all types of cases. He is a past member of the Oregon Workers’ Compensation Board. He is a frequent speaker on trial court practice, settlement conferences, and issues involving diversity and inclusion in the legal profession. Fundamentals of Oregon Civil Trial Procedure vii FACULTY (Continued) The Honorable Rives Kistler, Oregon Supreme Court, Salem.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1/13/18 Council on Court Procedures Meeting Minutes I
    MINUTES OF MEETING COUNCIL ON COURT PROCEDURES Saturday, January 13, 2018, 9:30 a.m. Oregon State Bar, 16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd., Tigard, Oregon ATTENDANCE Members Present: Members Absent: Kelly L. Andersen* Hon. D. Charles Bailey, Jr. Jay Beattie Hon. Lynn R. Nakamoto Troy S. Bundy Margurite Weeks Hon. R. Curtis Conover Kenneth C. Crowley Guests: Travis Eiva Jennifer Gates* Matt Shields, Oregon State Bar Hon. Timothy C. Gerking* Hon. Norman R. Hill Council Staff: Meredith Holley Robert Keating Shari C. Nilsson, Executive Assistant Hon. David E. Leith Mark A. Peterson, Executive Director Hon. Susie L. Norby Shenoa L. Payne Hon. Leslie Roberts Sharon A. Rudnick Derek D. Snelling Hon. Douglas L. Tookey* Hon. John A. Wolf Deanna L. Wray *Appeared by teleconference ORCP/Topics ORCP Amendments ORCP/Topics to be ORCP/Topics Discussed & Not Acted Upon Moved to Publication Reexamined Next Discussed this Meeting this Biennium Docket this Biennium Biennium Fictitious Names Probate/Protective Proceedings ORCP 22 ORCP 23 ORCP 9 ORCP 43 ORCP 27 ORCP 21 ORCP 34 ORCP 25 ORCP 55 ORCP 32 ORCP 79 ORCP 45 ORCP 47 ORCP 68 ORCP 71 ORCP 79 1 - 1/13/18 Council on Court Procedures Meeting Minutes I. Call to Order Mr. Keating called the meeting to order at 9:31 a.m. II. Administrative Matters A. Approval of December 9, 2017, Minutes Mr. Keating asked whether any Council members had comments or concerns about the draft December 9, 2017, minutes (Appendix A). Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve those minutes. Judge Roberts made a motion to approve the December 9, 2017, minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • INSURANCE COVERAGE Alert!
    INSURANCE COVERAGE Alert! News Concerning Recent Insurance Coverage Issues January 29, 2008 www.cozen.com OREGON SUPREME COURT RULES TORT REFORM PRINCIPAL OFFICE: CAP AS APPLIED TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PHILADELPHIA NEW YORK MIDTOWN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL (215) 665-2000 (212) 509-9400 (800) 523-2900 (800) 437-7040 ATLANTA NEWARK By: William F. Knowles and Joshua M. Rosen (404) 572-2000 (973) 286-1200 [email protected] & [email protected] (800) 890-1393 (888) 200-9521 CHARLOTTE SANTA FE (704) 376-3400 (505) 820-3346 The Oregon Supreme Court recently held that a plaintiff could pursue liability claims (800) 762-3575 (866) 231-0144 against individual public employees of public entities. The Court further stated that the damages cap in the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA) violated the Remedy Clause CHERRY HILL SAN DIEGO (856) 910-5000 (619) 234-1700 of the Oregon Constitution. Jordaan Michael Clarke v. Oregon Health Sciences (800) 989-0499 (800) 782-3366 University, No. SC S053868, (Ore. Sup., December 28, 2007). CHICAGO SAN FRANCISCO (312) 382-3100 (415) 617-6100 In February 1998, Jordaan Michael Clarke (Clarke) was born at Oregon Health & (877) 992-6036 (800) 818-0165 Science University (OHSU) with a congenital heart defect. In May 1998, Clarke returned to OHSU for surgical repair of his heart defect. After a successful surgery, DALLAS SEATTLE (214) 462-3000 (206) 340-1000 Clarke was placed in a surgical intensive care unit, where he suffered permanent brain (800) 448-1207 (800) 423-1950 damage from oxygen deprivation. DENVER TORONTO (720) 479-3900 (416) 361-3200 In 2001, Clarke sued OHSU and the medical staff personnel who treated Clarke for (877) 467-0305 (888) 727-9948 more than $17 million to pay for his lifetime care, loss and future wages and non-economic damages.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court
    SUPREME COURT Media Release COPIES: Contact: Copies of the slip opinions may be obtained from the Appellate Records Section, (503) 986-5555 Stephen P. Armitage The full text of these opinions can be found at www.courts.oregon.gov/publications Staff Attorney (503) 986-7023 Case decided August 6, 2020. Jennifer James, et al. v. State of Oregon, et al., (SC S066933) On petition for review under Oregon Laws 2019, chapter 355, section 65. Petitioners' requests for relief challenging Oregon Laws 2019, chapter 355, sections 1-19 and 39-40, are denied. Today, the Oregon Supreme Court denied claims brought by petitioners challenging two amendments to the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) enacted by the legislature in SB 1049 (Oregon Laws 2019, chapter 355). The first challenged amendment redirects a member's PERS contributions from the member's individual account program -- the defined-contribution component of the member's retirement plan - - to a newly created employee pension stability account, used to help fund the defined- benefit component of the member's retirement plan. The second challenged amendment imposes a cap on the salary used to calculate a member's benefits. Petitioners primarily argued that the redirection and salary-cap provisions in SB 1049 unconstitutionally impaired their employment contracts in violation of the state Contract Clause, Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution. In the alternative, petitioners argued that the amendments violated the federal Contract Clause, Article I, section 10, clause 1, of the United States Constitution, breached their contracts, and constituted an unconstitutional taking of their property without just compensation in violation of Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States
    Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States Composition of the Supreme Court Tuesday, July 20, 2021 Written Statement of Marin K. Levy Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law Co-Chair Bauer, Co-Chair Rodriguez, and distinguished members of the Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of Supreme Court expansion and composition. By way of background, I am a Professor of Law at the Duke University School of Law and a faculty advisor to the Bolch Judicial Institute. My research and teaching over the past twelve years have focused on judicial administration and appellate courts. It is a distinct honor and privilege to speak with you on these matters. Court expansion and other changes to the Court’s composition implicate fundamental questions about the role and operation of our nation’s highest court. These include whether expanding the Court would harm the institution’s legitimacy, whether expansion would prompt a series of expansions in the future, whether an expanded Court could function well as a single decision-making body, and whether expansion would contradict existing constitutional norms and conventions. Even if the answers to these questions were known, there is a larger background question to be answered—namely how such considerations should be weighted in assessing any proposal to change the Court’s structure. It is no easy task that the Commission has been given, and I hope that the legal community and public at large is cognizant of this. In contrast to the subject of the panel, my own testimony will be fairly circumscribed.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Supreme Court Lays Down the Law on the Product Liability Statute of Limitations by Michael “Sam” Sandmire, Partner, Litigation Group and Sara L
    Oregon Supreme Court Lays Down the Law on the Product Liability Statute of Limitations By Michael “Sam” Sandmire, Partner, Litigation Group and Sara L. Tait, Law Clerk, Litigation Group October 2002 In a little over a year, the Oregon Supreme Court has issued a trilogy of major interpretations of Oregon’s product liability statutes: Gladhart v. Oregon Vineyard Supply Co., 332 Or 226, 26 P3d 817 (2001); Kambury v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 334 Or 367 (2002); and Griffith v. Blatt, 334 Or 456 (2002). All three of the decisions have focused on statutory construction, and the results demonstrate the reluctance of Oregon’s highest court to insert common law precepts into the product liability statutory scheme. The cases further spotlight the continuing struggle to identify the contours of Oregon’s product liability law, which arguably encompasses far more than the doctrine of strict liability. In Gladhart, the Court interpreted ORS 30.905(2), the “product liability” statute of limitations. 332 Or at 229. ORS 30.905(2) mandates that a product liability action “shall be commenced not later than two years after the date on which the death, injury, or damage complained of occurs.” The Court rejected the application of the “discovery rule” to this statute, noting that “[a] discovery rule cannot be assumed, but must be found in the statute of limitations itself.” Id. at 230. In the absence of explicit language that the statute runs upon “discovery” or “accrual,” the Court concluded that “[t]he words ‘death, injury, or damage’ [as] used in ORS 30.905(2) refer to events, not to abstractions or ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Show Me the Money 1 Last Winter, Tucker and Ian Started a Lawn-Mowing and Snow-Shoveling Watch the Bottom Line Service
    LAPLeadership, Attitude, Performance...making learning pay! Financial Analysis LAP 85 Performance Indicator: FI:085 Student Guide Show Me Table of Contents the Money Watch the Bottom Line 2 Nature of Accounting It’s All in the System 8 Objectives Why bother learning about the 2 nature of accounting? Describe the importance of accounting to an organization. What would you do? 5 Explain basic accounting activities. Use what you’ve learned— 18 right now! 1375 King Avenue, P.O. Box 12279, Columbus, Ohio 43212-0279 Ph: (614) 486-6708 Fax: (614) 486-1819 Details: www.MBAResearch.org Copyright ©2017 by MBA Research and Curriculum Center® LAP-FI-085-CS © 2017, MBA Research and Curriculum Center® Show Me the Money 1 Last winter, Tucker and Ian started a lawn-mowing and snow-shoveling Watch the Bottom Line service. Although they did well initially, business slowed Accounting, which is both a basic business function and a career choice, is the down when summer arrived. Many past process of keeping financial records. Most of us practice some form of accounting clients (who had hired them to clear snow from their driveways) chose to in our daily lives, even if we don’t think of it as accounting. We keep records of mow their own yards. Luckily, though, a our personal funds and our debts so that we know how much money we have and few residents wanted the boys to mow how much we owe. instead of doing the work themselves. To mow these yards, Tucker and Ian Suppose for a moment that it’s your birthday, and your Uncle Pete gives you a needed gasoline for their mowers.
    [Show full text]
  • A Stylistic Approach to the God of Small Things Written by Arundhati Roy
    Lingnan University Digital Commons @ Lingnan University Theses & Dissertations Department of English 2007 A stylistic approach to the God of Small Things written by Arundhati Roy Wing Yi, Monica CHAN Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.ln.edu.hk/eng_etd Part of the English Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation Chan, W. Y. M. (2007). A stylistic approach to the God of Small Things written by Arundhati Roy (Master's thesis, Lingnan University, Hong Kong). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.14793/eng_etd.2 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of English at Digital Commons @ Lingnan University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Lingnan University. Terms of Use The copyright of this thesis is owned by its author. Any reproduction, adaptation, distribution or dissemination of this thesis without express authorization is strictly prohibited. All rights reserved. A STYLISTIC APPROACH TO THE GOD OF SMALL THINGS WRITTEN BY ARUNDHATI ROY CHAN WING YI MONICA MPHIL LINGNAN UNIVERSITY 2007 A STYLISTIC APPROACH TO THE GOD OF SMALL THINGS WRITTEN BY ARUNDHATI ROY by CHAN Wing Yi Monica A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Philosophy in English Lingnan University 2007 ABSTRACT A Stylistic Approach to The God of Small Things written by Arundhati Roy by CHAN Wing Yi Monica Master of Philosophy This thesis presents a creative-analytical hybrid production in relation to the stylistic distinctiveness in The God of Small Things, the debut novel of Arundhati Roy.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Benchmarks Spring 2005
    Oregon BENCHMARKS THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF OREGON HISTORICAL SOCIETY NEWSLETTER The Birth of the Brandeis Brief Muller v. Oregon: Women, Law, and Labor By John Stephens n 1905, Joe Haselbock, overseer of Portland’s The Supreme Court accepted review on a writ of IGrand Laundry located at 320 N. 17th, required error. This was the Progressive Era and the Oregon one of his employees, Emma Gotcher, to work more statute was not all that unusual. Nineteen other than 10 hours on, of all days, Labor Day, Septem- states had enacted similar legislation. Muller was ber 4. (Labor Day had been a holiday in Oregon special because in 1905, the same year that Gotcher since 1887, first in the nation.) This started the had been forced to work over 10 hours, the Supreme events leading to Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 Continue on page 2 (1908), in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of progressive legislation pro- Our next Famous Case on May 19th viding a 10-hour work day for women, but did so for retrogressive reasons, finding as fact that women Muller v. Oregon (1908) and Bunting v. Oregon were in many respects inferior to men and there- (1917) are the subjects of our May 19, 4 – 6 p.m. fore needing of protection. The opinion is studied Famous Cases presentation at the Hatfield U.S. in history and law school courses, and affects U.S. Courthouse. Our speakers include Julie Novkov, Supreme Court jurisprudence to this day. The case associate professor of political science at Univer- is also the birthplace of the Brandeis Brief.
    [Show full text]
  • The Italian Girl in Algiers
    Opera Box Teacher’s Guide table of contents Welcome Letter . .1 Lesson Plan Unit Overview and Academic Standards . .2 Opera Box Content Checklist . .8 Reference/Tracking Guide . .9 Lesson Plans . .11 Synopsis and Musical Excerpts . .32 Flow Charts . .38 Gioachino Rossini – a biography .............................45 Catalogue of Rossini’s Operas . .47 2 0 0 7 – 2 0 0 8 S E A S O N Background Notes . .50 World Events in 1813 ....................................55 History of Opera ........................................56 History of Minnesota Opera, Repertoire . .67 GIUSEPPE VERDI SEPTEMBER 22 – 30, 2007 The Standard Repertory ...................................71 Elements of Opera .......................................72 Glossary of Opera Terms ..................................76 GIOACHINO ROSSINI Glossary of Musical Terms .................................82 NOVEMBER 10 – 18, 2007 Bibliography, Discography, Videography . .85 Word Search, Crossword Puzzle . .88 Evaluation . .91 Acknowledgements . .92 CHARLES GOUNOD JANUARY 26 –FEBRUARY 2, 2008 REINHARD KEISER MARCH 1 – 9, 2008 mnopera.org ANTONÍN DVOˇRÁK APRIL 12 – 20, 2008 FOR SEASON TICKETS, CALL 612.333.6669 The Italian Girl in Algiers Opera Box Lesson Plan Title Page with Related Academic Standards lesson title minnesota academic national standards standards: arts k–12 for music education 1 – Rossini – “I was born for opera buffa.” Music 9.1.1.3.1 8, 9 Music 9.1.1.3.2 Theater 9.1.1.4.2 Music 9.4.1.3.1 Music 9.4.1.3.2 Theater 9.4.1.4.1 Theater 9.4.1.4.2 2 – Rossini Opera Terms Music
    [Show full text]
  • The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures
    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community.
    [Show full text]
  • From Coverture to Supreme Court Justice Women Lawyers and Judges in Oregon History
    RESEARCH FILES From Coverture to Supreme Court Justice Women Lawyers and Judges in Oregon History by Janice Dilg These are really great women and they’re doing great things for women in law. — Agnes Petersen1 WOMEN WHO ADVOCATED for of the legal profession to serving at the right to vote understood that every level of the judiciary in our state enfranchisement was only one step in and nation. full citizenship. With the vote, women The U.S. District Court of Oregon could pursue a range of economic, is the trial court of the federal court civil, and social rights by holding elec- system. Each state in the country has tive office, serving on juries, changing at least one district court, and Oregon’s laws, making laws, and enforcing laws. District Court began with statehood in The U.S. District Court of Oregon 1859. Matthew Deady was appointed Historical Society Oral History Col- the sole U.S. District Judge for Oregon, lection reveals much about the women and he remained the only Oregon who changed both the legal profession District judge for approximately the and the laws of Oregon. Oral histories next three decades. Today, the U.S. of women in this collection span from District Court of Oregon consists of the latter decades of the nineteenth twenty-five Article III, Magistrate, century into the first decade of the and Bankruptcy Court judges based twenty-first. During that time, women in Eugene, Medford, Pendleton, and moved from not having the right to Portland and is currently led by Chief vote or serve on a jury to having law Judge Ann Aiken, who became Chief degrees and working in every aspect in 29.
    [Show full text]
  • Amendments to the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure Have Been Promulgated by the Council on Court Procedures for Submission to the 2021 Legislative Assembly
    AMENDMENTS TO THE OREGON RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE promulgated by the COUNCIL ON COURT PROCEDURES December 12, 2020 COUNCIL ON COURT PROCEDURES Judge Members Hon. Lynn Nakamoto, Justice, Oregon Supreme Court, Salem (8/31/21) Hon. Doug Tookey, Judge, Oregon Court of Appeals, Salem (8/31/21) Hon. D. Charles Bailey, Circuit Court Judge, Washington Co. (8/31/21) Hon. R. Curtis Conover, Circuit Court Judge, Lane Co. (8/31/21) Hon. Norman R. Hill, Circuit Court Judge, Polk Co. (8/31/21) Hon. David Euan Leith, Circuit Court Judge, Marion Co (8/31/23) Hon. Thomas McHill, Circuit Court Judge, Linn County (8/31/23) Hon. Susie L. Norby, Circuit Court Judge, Clackamas Co (8/31/21) Hon. Leslie Roberts, Circuit Court Judge, Multnomah Co (8/31/23) Hon. John A. Wolf, Circuit Court Judge, Wasco Co. (8/31/21) Attorney Members Kelly L. Andersen, Medford (8/31/21) Troy S. Bundy, Portland (8/31/23) Kenneth C. Crowley, Salem (8/31/23) (Vice Chair) Travis Eiva, Eugene (8/31/21) Jennifer Gates, Portland (8/31/21) (Chair) Barry Goehler, Lake Oswego (8/31/23) Meredith Holley, Eugene (8/31/21) Drake A. Hood, Hillsboro (8/31/23) Scott O'Donnell, Portland (8/31/21) Shenoa L. Payne, Portland (8/31/21) Tina Stupasky, Eugene (8/31/23) Jeffrey Young, Portland (8/31/23) Public Member Margurite Weeks, Portland (8/31/21) (Treasurer) Staff Mark A. Peterson, Executive Director Shari C. Nilsson, Executive Assistant c/o Lewis and Clark Law School 10101 S. Terwilliger Blvd. Portland, OR 97219 Telephone: (503) 768-6505 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] INTRODUCTION The following amendments to the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure have been promulgated by the Council on Court Procedures for submission to the 2021 Legislative Assembly.
    [Show full text]