DOCSLIB.ORG

ANGEL INVESTORS, LLC, a Utah Corporation, Suing Derivatively on Behalf of Xango, LLC V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ANGEL INVESTORS, LLC, a Utah Corporation, Suing Derivatively on Behalf of Xango, LLC V Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Supreme Court Briefs 2008 ANGEL INVESTORS, LLC, a Utah corporation, suing derivatively on behalf of XanGo, LLC v. AARON GARRITY, BRYAN DAVIS, GARY HOLLISTER, GORDON MORTON, JOSEPH MORTON, and KENT WOOD : Brief of Appellee Utah Supreme Court Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Supreme Court; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Hatch, James and Dodge; Mark F. James; Phillip J. Russell; Attorneys for Appellees. Mary Anne Q. Wood; Richard J. Armstrong; Wood Crapo, LLC; Attorneys for Appellant. Recommended Citation Brief of Appellee, Angel Investors v. Garrity, No. 20080111.00 (Utah Supreme Court, 2008). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2/2766 This Brief of Appellee is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Supreme Court Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. IN THE UTAH SUPREME COURT ANGEL INVESTORS, LLC, a Utah corporation, suing derivatively on behalf of XanGo, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, Supreme Court No. 20080111-SC vs. AARON GARRITY, BRYAN DAVIS, GARY HOLLISTER, GORDON MORTON, JOSEPH MORTON, and KENT WOOD, Defendants/Appellees. BRIEF OF APPELLEES APPEAL FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN UTAH COUNTY THE HONORABLE FRED D. HOWARD Mary Anne Q. Wood (3539) Mark F. James (5295) Richard J. Armstrong (7461) Phillip J. Russell (10445) WOOD CRAPO, LLC HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC 500 Eagle Gate Tower 10 West Broadway, Suite 400 60 East South Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 363-6363 Telephone: (801) 366-6060 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees FILED UTAH APPELLATE COURTS JUL t : 2008 IN THE UTAH SUPREME COURT ANGEL INVESTORS, LLC, a Utah corporation, suing derivatively on behalf of XanGo, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, Supreme Court No. 20080111-SC vs. AARON GARRITY, BRYAN DAVIS, GARY HOLLISTER, GORDON MORTON, JOSEPH MORTON, and KENT WOOD, Defendants/Appellees. BRIEF OF APPELLEES APPEAL FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN UTAH COUNTY THE HONORABLE FRED D. HOWARD Mary Anne Q. Wood (3539) Mark F. James (5295) Richard J. Armstrong (7461) Phillip J. Russell (10445) WOOD CRAPO, LLC HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC 500 Eagle Gate Tower 10 West Broadway, Suite 400 60 East South Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 363-6363 Telephone: (801) 366-6060 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees COMPLETE LIST OF ALL PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING The caption contains the names of all parties to the proceeding. These parties are: 1. The Appellant, Angel Investors, LLC, which shall be referred to herein as "Angel Investors" or "Plaintiff." 2. The Appellees, Aaron Garrity, Bryan Davis, Gary Hollister, Gordon Morton, Joseph Morton, and Kent Wood, who shall be referred to collectively herein as "Defendants." Defendants set forth this separate list of parties to the proceeding to clear up any confusion that might arise from reviewing the "Complete List of All Parties to the Proceeding" contained in the Opening Brief of Appellant ("Plaintiffs Brief), filed by Angel Investors. Therein, Plaintiff indicates that the Appellee is XanGo, LLC ("XanGo"). See Plaintiffs Brief at /. In fact, XanGo is not the Appellee. Plaintiff has sued XanGo in a different case entitled Angel Investors, LLC v. XanGo, LLC, Case No. 060402848. In the matter before this Court, Plaintiff is seeking to bring suit on behalf of XanGo in a derivative action against the above-named Defendants. i TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPLETE LIST OF ALL PARTIES TO PROCEEDING i TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iv STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1 DETERMINATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES, ORDINANCES, AND RULES 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11 ARGUMENT 15 I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY GRANTED DEFENDANTS' RULE 12 (b)(1) MOTION TO DISMISS WHEN IT FOUND THAT PLAINTIFF DOES NOT APPEAR TO FAIRLY AND ADEQUATELY REPRESENT SIMILARLY SITUATED XANGO OWNERS PURSUANT TO RULE 23A 15 A. The District Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Finding that XanGo Owners are Similarly Situated to Plaintiff in this Derivative Action and Plaintiff Must Represent the Interests of those Owners 16 B. The District Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Finding that Plaintiff Does Not Appear to Fairly and Adequately Represent Similarly Situated XanGo Owners 23 1. Plaintiffs Direct Lawsuit Against XanGo Requesting, Among Other Relief, Damages from and Dissolution of XanGo, Creates an Actual Conflict of Interest 26 2. All XanGo Owners Except Plaintiff Oppose Plaintiffs Attempt to Represent XanGo's Owners in the Derivative Action 33 ii 3. Other "Outside Entanglements" and "Conflicts of Interest" Demonstrate That Plaintiff Does Not Appear to Fairly and Adequately Represent Similarly Situated XanGo Owners 37 II. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DECLINED TO CONVERT DEFENDANTS' RULE 12(b)(1) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION INTO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENIED PLAINTIFF'S RULE 56(f) REQUEST FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY 39 CONCLUSION 43 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 44 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Angel Investors, LLC v. XanGo, LLC, Case No. 060402848 i, 6 Aspenwood, LLC v. C.A.T., LLC, 2003 UT App. 28, 73 P.3d 947 41 Brandon v. Brandon Constr. Co., Inc., 116 S.W.2d 349 (Ark. 1989) 35-36 Brown v. Glover, 2000 UT 89, 16 P.3d 540 3 Canfieldv. Layton City, 2005 UT60, 122P.3d622 41 demons v. Wallace, 592 P.2d 14 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978) 22 Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) 15 Coombs v. Juice Works Dev., Inc., 2003 UT App. 388, 81 P.3d 769 42 Davis v. Corned, Inc., 619 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1980) 24-25, 33, 35-37 DuPontv. Wyly, 61 F.R.D. 615, 624 (D.Del. 1973) 25 Eye Site, Inc. v. Blackburn, 796 S.W.2d 160 (Tex.1990) 22 G.A. Enterprises, Inc. v. Leisure Living Commun., Inc., 517 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1975) 25,38 GFLP,Ltd. v. CL Mgmt. Ltd., 2007 UT App. 131, 163P.3d636 29,31 Guttman v. Braemer, 51 F.R.D. 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) 34 Hallv. Tennessee Dressed Beef Co., 957 S.W.2d 536 (Tenn. 1997) 22, 29-30 Halsted Video, Inc. v. Guttillo, 115 F.R.D. 177 (N.D. 111. 1987) 22 Hornreich v. PlantIdus., Inc., 535 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1972) 2 In re Transocean Tender Offer Securities Litigation, 455 F.Supp. 999 (D.C. 111. 1978) 27 iv Jordon v. Bowman Apple Prods. Co., Inc., 728 F. Supp. 409 (W.D. Va. 1990) 17-18, 22 Kuzmickey v. Dunmore Corp., 420 F. Supp. 226 (E.D. Pa. 1976) 34 Larson v. Dumke, 900 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1990) 18, 33, 35-36 LeVanger v. Highland Estates Properties Owners Assoc, Inc., 80 P.3d 569 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) 24 Mayer v. Dev. Corp. of America, 396 F. Supp. 917 (D. Del. 1975) 15 Murphy v. Crosland, 886 P.2d 74 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) 28 Neusteterv. District Court, 675 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1984) 29-31 Nolen v. Shaw-Walker Co., 449 F.2d 506 (6th Cir. 1971) 33-34 Read v. Read, 556 N.W.2d 768 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996) 28, 32 Rothenbergv. Security Mgmt. Co., 667 F.2d 958 (11th Cir. 1982) 24-25, 33, 35-38 Ryan v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 765 F. Supp. 133 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 25, 27 Smith v. Ayres, 977 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1992) 1-2, 17-19, 36 Spoons v. Lewis, 987 P.2d 36 (Utah 1999) 39-41 Stuart v. Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 271 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2001) 42 Vanderbiltv. Geo-Energy Ltd., 725 F.2d 204 (3d Cir. 1983) 24 Wheeler v. McPherson, 2002 UT 16, 40 P.3d 632 (Utah 2002) 39-41 UTAH RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) 1-3,6, 11, 13, 14,39-42 Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 14, 41 Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 23A(b) 1, 4, 7, 11-12, 14-17,23-24, 37 Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 1 v Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 56 4, 40 Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) 5,40 Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) 5, 40 Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) 3, 5, 7, 11, 13-14, 35, 39-42 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 1-2, 23-24 UTAH STATUTES Utah Code Ann. § 48-2c-703 37 Utah Code Ann. § 78A-3-102(j) 1 vi STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Utah Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §78A-3-1020). STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Defendants disagree with Plaintiffs Statement of the Issues and set forth the issues as follows: ISSUE NO. 1: Did the District Court properly determine that Plaintiff does not appear to fairly and adequately represent similarly situated XanGo owners, as required under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 23A(b),1 when it found Plaintiff lacked standing and granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)? Standard of Review: The Utah Supreme Court has not previously articulated a standard by which Utah appellate courts shall review a trial court's dismissal of a derivative suit on the grounds that it "appears that the plaintiff does not fairly and adequately represent the interests of the shareholders or members similarly situated in enforcing the right of the corporation or association." Utah R.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad Christopher Q
    Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Cleveland State Law Review Law Journals 2003 Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad Christopher Q. Cutler Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons How does access to this work benefit oy u? Let us know! Recommended Citation Christopher Q. Culter, Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad, 50 Clev. St. L. Rev. 335 (2002-2003) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTHING LESS THAN THE DIGNITY OF MAN: EVOLVING STANDARDS, BOTCHED EXECUTIONS AND UTAH’S CONTROVERSIAL USE OF THE FIRING SQUAD CHRISTOPHER Q. CUTLER1 Human justice is sadly lacking in consolation; it can only shed blood for blood. But we mustn’t ask that it do more than it can.2 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 336 II. HISTORICAL USE OF UTAH’S FIRING SQUAD........................ 338 A. The Firing Squad from Wilderness to Statehood ................................................................. 339 B. From Statehood to Furman ......................................... 347 1. Gary Gilmore to the Present Death Row Crowd ................................................ 357 2. Modern Firing Squad Procedure .......................... 363 III. EIGHTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE ................................ 365 A. A History of Pain ......................................................... 366 B. Early Supreme Court Cases......................................... 368 C. Evolving Standards of Decency and the Dignity of Man...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 33 No. 6 Nov/Dec 2020 Partner up with POWER Is Your Firm Concerned About Expenses in This Current Economic Cycle?
    Utah Bar® JOURNAL Volume 33 No. 6 Nov/Dec 2020 Partner Up With POWER Is your firm concerned about expenses in this current economic cycle? Concerned insurance carriers or corporate defendants will try to “lowball” or stall your contingency cases? In need of an aggressive team to get top value for your clients and get it done without more delays? Eisenberg, Cutt, Kendell & Olson are here to help you. Our full-time business is working with lawyers and firms to co-counsel larger contingency fee injury, tort and insurance cases. We have the staff and financial resources to aggressively prosecute cases even in the hardest economic times. We can do it all or work side by side with you. If needed, we can also help with case expenses and costs. We’d like to talk to you about getting the most for your cases. 801.366.9100 | www.eckolaw.com The Utah Bar Journal Published by the Utah State Bar | 645 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 | 801-531-9077 | www.utahbar.org BAR JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD Editor-in-Chief Utah Law Developments Editor Editor at Large Alisha Giles LaShel Shaw Todd Zagorec Managing Editor Judicial Advisor Young Lawyer Representative Andrea Valenti Arthur Judge Gregory K. Orme Alex Sandvik Articles Editors Copy Editors Paralegal Representative LaShel Shaw Hal Armstrong Greg Wayment Victoria Luman Paul Justensen Jacqueline Carlton Bar Staff Liaison Editors Emeritus Christine Critchley Departments Editor William D. Holyoak Ryan Beckstrom Judge Catherine E. Roberts (Ret.) Advertising/Design Manager Laniece Roberts MISSION & VISION OF THE BAR: The lawyers of the Utah State Bar serve the public and legal profession with excellence, civility, and integrity.
    [Show full text]
  • State Court Organization, 1998 Conference of State Court Administrators, Court Statistics Committee
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics State Court Organization 1998 Victim-offender relationship in violent crimes (rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault) by sex of victim Courts and judges Judicial selection and service Judicial branch Appellate courts Trial courts The jury The sentencing context Court structure U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics State Court Organization 1998 By David B. Rottman Carol R. Flango Melissa T. Cantrell Randall Hansen Neil LaFountain A joint effort of Conference of State Court Administrators and National Center for State Courts June 2000, NCJ 178932 U.S Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director, BJS This Bureau of Justice Statistics report was prepared by the National Center for State Courts under the Supervision of Steven K. Smith and Marika F.X. Litras of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The project was supported by BJS grant number 98-BJ-CX-K002. Principle staff for the project at the National Center for State Courts were David B. Rottman, Ph.D., Carol R. Flango, Melissa T. Cantrell, Randall Hansen, and Neil LaFountain. Tom Hester and Carol DeFrances of BJS provided editorial review. Jayne Robinson administered final production. This report was made possible by the support and guidance of the Court Statistics Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. Please bring suggestions for information that should be included in future editions to the attention of the Director of the Court Statistics Project, National Center for State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8798.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad
    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 50 Issue 3 Article 3 2003 Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad Christopher Q. Cutler Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Christopher Q. Culter, Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad, 50 Clev. St. L. Rev. 335 (2002-2003) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTHING LESS THAN THE DIGNITY OF MAN: EVOLVING STANDARDS, BOTCHED EXECUTIONS AND UTAH’S CONTROVERSIAL USE OF THE FIRING SQUAD CHRISTOPHER Q. CUTLER1 Human justice is sadly lacking in consolation; it can only shed blood for blood. But we mustn’t ask that it do more than it can.2 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 336 II. HISTORICAL USE OF UTAH’S FIRING SQUAD........................ 338 A. The Firing Squad from Wilderness to Statehood ................................................................. 339 B. From Statehood to Furman ......................................... 347 1. Gary Gilmore to the Present Death Row Crowd ................................................ 357 2. Modern Firing Squad Procedure .......................... 363 III. EIGHTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE ................................ 365 A. A History of Pain ......................................................... 366 B. Early Supreme Court Cases......................................... 368 C. Evolving Standards of Decency and the Dignity of Man...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • UTAH BAR JOURNAL M Vol
    :; I ~ 1 II ,i UTAH BAR JOURNAL m Vol. 9 NO.3 March 1996 a ~1 Iii I" 11 ~ 11 II ~ ,~ I ~ Response to "State vs. Teuscher, the i 'Exception' Swallows the Rule" 8 \1 A Modest Proposal Concerning "Esquire" 10 'I E-Mail for the Office and the World 12 27 The State of the Judiciary !I ~ J E The State's Most Practical, Reliable, and Affordable Statutory Reference... SUPERIOR ANNOTATIONS FOCUS PORTABLE AND CONVNIENT...Each AND DEFINE YOUR RESEARCH... individual volume is small enough to carry Michie's Utah Code Annotated contains notes to the office or the courtroom. to decisions which directly construe Utah law. The case notes are arranged under brief, COMPREHENSIV INDEX ELIMINATES concise headings which we list at the begin- FRUITLESS RESEACH...We update and ning of the notes to facilitate research. replace the General Index annually. With each printing, we improve the index entries PROMPT UPDATES AND ADVANCE according to user suggestions about popular CODE SERVICE ASSURE THE MOST terminology. CURRNT LAW...Michie wil publish fully annotated cumulative supplements within ALL RULES CENTRALIZED IN ONE 90 days of receiving the revisions from the '- EASY-TO-USE VOLUME...Streamline and legislature. During the period between the simplify your research efforts with our Rules publication of supplements, our Advance volume which includes and indexes all local Code Service keeps you up-to-date with peri- federal rules for Utah. Annual supplements odic cumulative pamphlets. ensure that you have up-to-date information. po To order or for more information, call today: ~~-', 800-562-1215 MICHIE Please use code PE4 when phoning in your order.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Utah State Prison 1850-1952
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 1952 History of Utah State Prison 1850-1952 James B. Hill Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons, and the Mormon Studies Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Hill, James B., "History of Utah State Prison 1850-1952" (1952). Theses and Dissertations. 4791. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4791 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. g 4 47 HISTORYOF 0 UTAH STATE PRISON 185019521850 1952 A thesis irePrepresentedseated to the faculty of the department of history brigham young university provo utah lain partial fulffulfillmentbulfillmentwillment of the requirements for the degree master of science in history 171833 by james B hill june 1952 PREFACEPHKPACE down through the ages men with the insatiable desire to know and record truths of the past have been responsible for the many historical volumes that we enjoy today only lovers of history can fully appreciate the thoughts that arise in the mind of a student of history as he stands and gazes upon relics and ruins of the past in 1943 the writer first visited the old sugarhouse prison iain salt lake city and was intrigued with the old build- ings surrounded by high stone walls two years
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report 2017
    FINAL REPORT MARCH 2017 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRENGTHENING THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM OF NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina on Commission the Administration ofLaw & Justice North Carolina Administration on of Commission the Law & Justice TABLE of CONTENTS CONSIDERING HOW NORTH CAROLINA COURTS CAN BEST MEET INSTITUTIONAL NEEDS AND 21ST CENTURY PUBLIC EXPECTATIONS LETTER FROM THE CO-CHAIRS iii COMMISSION MEMBERS v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii PART ONE 1 • Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 • The Commission’s Work ............................................................................................................. 4 • A Look Back: How We Got Here .............................................................................................. 6 • Adapting to a New Environment ........................................................................................... 8 NCCALJ FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS | North Carolina Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice • A Framework for Recommendations .................................................................................14 • ..........................................................................................14 • TheFairness Ultimate ................................................................................................................................... Goal — Justice 15 • Access .......................................................................................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Documekt RESUME 1NSTLTUTION Department of Justice, Washington
    DOCUMEkT RESUME ED 220 396 I SO 014 256 TITLE State Court Organization, 1980. 1NSTLTUTION National Center for State Courts-, Williamsburg, Va. SPONS AGENCY Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Bureau of Justice Statistics. , REPORT NO NCJ-76711 PUB DATE May 82 GRANT 79-SS-AX-0010 NOTE 573p.; Not available in paper copy due to amall print type throughout original document. Report of work was performed by the National Court Statistics Project. AVAILABLE FROMNational Criminal Justice Reference Service, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850 (single copies, free). EDRS PRICE MF02 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Administration; Governmental Structure; *Organization; *State Courts; State Government; Statistical Data ABSTRACT Informaticn on state court organization as of January 1, 1980, in the 50 states, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam,Lpuetto Rico, and the Virgin Islands is provided. Data were colketted from published sources and through questionnaires. There, are two major parts. Part I consists of 36 tables containing comparative data from all the states and other jurisdictions which describe particular facets of state court personnel, organization, structure, and administration. Data are summary in nature. Subiect matter covered by the tables is diverse, including descriptions of 'justices' and judges' positions at all leve s of court; court jurisdiction; methods of judicial selection; the selection, qualificati-on, and use of jurors; state-le.el court administrative offices; and descriptions of judicial disciplinary bodies. Part II contains narrative profiles and figures that describe the organization of the judicial system in'each state. Information is presented on seven topics: courts of last resort; intermediate appellate-courts; courts of general jurisdiction; courts of limited or special jurisdiction; state-level administration;quasi-judicial officers; and judicial discipline.
    [Show full text]
  • This Order and Judgment Is Not Binding Precedent, Except Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, and Collateral Estoppel
    FILED U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit BAP Appeal No. 06-77 Docket No. 15 Filed: 03/19/2007 Page:March 1 of 17 19, 2007 Barbara A. Schermerhorn NOT FOR PUBLICATION Clerk UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT IN RE DAVID F. BUTLER, COLLEEN BAP No. UT-06-077 A. BUTLER, also known as Colli Butler, doing business as Power Players, doing business as Power Players International, Debtors. FREELIFE INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Bankr. No. 04-27637-JAB Adv. No. 04P-3012-JAB Plaintiff – Appellee, Chapter 7 v. ORDER AND JUDGMENT* DAVID F. BUTLER, COLLEEN A. BUTLER, also known as Coli Butler, doing business as Power Players, doing business as Power Players International, Defendants – Appellants. Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah Before NUGENT, McNIFF, and BERGER1, Bankruptcy Judges. NUGENT, Bankruptcy Judge. Appellants David F. Butler and Colleen A. Butler (the “Butlers” or “Debtors”) appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. BAP L.R. 8018-6(a). 1 Honorable Robert D. Berger, United States Bankruptcy Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. BAP Appeal No. 06-77 Docket No. 15 Filed: 03/19/2007 Page: 2 of 17 denying their discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(4)(A).2 Debtors’ various specifications of error may be summarized as follows:
    [Show full text]
  • View/Download
    University of Nevada, Reno PERCEPTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES REGARDING PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS IN LOUISIANA TRIAL COURTS A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Judicial Studies by Donald Ray Johnson Dr. Shawn C. Marsh, Dissertation Advisor December, 2018 Copyright © by Donald Ray Johnson, 2018 All Rights Reserved THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the dissertation prepared under our supervision by Donald Ray Johnson Entitled Perceptions and Perspectives Regarding Procedural Fairness In Louisiana Trial Courts be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Shawn C. Marsh, Ph.D., Chair Jennifer Lowman, Ph.D., Committee Member Emily Gold LaGratta, J.D., Committee Member Kelly E. Tait, M.A., Committee Member Veronica Dahir, Ph.D., Graduate School Representative David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School December 2018 i ABSTRACT Procedural fairness is a helpful or effective communication process that can be used to achieve successful outcome effects from trial judges’ courtroom realistic bench adjudication abilities. This dissertation provides the history of procedural fairness, scientific support for its existence, its evidence-informed basis of its effectiveness, and its status in the fields of social sciences and law. It also examines the scope of courtroom implementation in Louisiana since the CCJ/COSCA nationally adopted Resolution 12. Judges completed a survey, which provided insight of their perspectives regarding procedural fairness, as well as their incorporation of the principles of procedural fairness in their courtrooms. Data provided by a trained court observer was collected in order to assess select state and local trial court judges’ behaviors and whether or not they adjudicated in open court through the principles of procedural fairness.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Utah Courts Review Judgments of Illinois Courts on Questions of Illinois Law? Wilfred J
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 18 | Issue 1 Article 6 Spring 3-1-1961 Should Utah Courts Review Judgments Of Illinois Courts On Questions Of Illinois Law? Wilfred J. Ritz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Conflict of Laws Commons Recommended Citation Wilfred J. Ritz, Should Utah Courts Review Judgments Of Illinois Courts On Questions Of Illinois Law?, 18 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 62 (1961), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol18/iss1/6 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 62 WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW [Vol. XVIII (3)Dick purports to be based upon State law and therefore can- not be regarded as abandoning the Thayer theory when a federal court has a freedom of choice. SHOULD UTAH COURTS REVIEW JUDGMENTS OF ILLINOIS COURTS ON QUESTIONS OF ILLINOIS LAW? WILFRED J. R-rz* It would seem axiomatic that the original judicial determina- tion of the law of a particular state is within the exclusive province of the courts of that state. In conflict of laws cases, of course, the courts of one state must ascertain what is the law of other states, and some- times fall into error in doing so,' but this is a different process than declaring the law as an original proposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Kathleen Hamby and the Utah Department of Social Services V
    Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Supreme Court Briefs 1988 Kathleen Hamby and the Utah Department of Social Services v. Gail Jacobson : Reply Brief Utah Supreme Court Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc1 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Supreme Court; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Richard M. Taylor, Lynn D. Wardle; Attorneys for Respondent. Priscilla Ruth MacDougall; Mary C. Corporon, Kellie F. Williams; Corporon and Williams; Attorneys for Appellant. Recommended Citation Reply Brief, Hamby v. Jacobson, No. 880026.00 (Utah Supreme Court, 1988). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc1/1877 This Reply Brief is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Supreme Court Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. BRIEF TAH OCUMENT FU ) State of Utah OCKET NO. QVOOUe-CJl Supreme Court Kathleen Hamby, and the State of Utah, by and through Utah State Department of Social Services, Appellants, --vs.-- Case No. 860188 Gail Jacobson, Respondent. 88-0026-01 On appeal from an Order and Ruling of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Utah County, Judge Ray M. Harding, Presiding, in the divorce action of Kathleen Jacobson, and the State of Utah, by and through Utah State Department of Social Services vs.
    [Show full text]