William Czar Bradley, 1782-1857
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
State of Maine
MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) • a " , Ii DOCUMENTS I'lllNTED BY ORDl!R 01' THE LEGISLATUR!r~ OF THE STA'rE OF MAINE, " DURING ITS SBSSIONS A. D. 1 8 5 1-- 2-. att!Jttt;ta: WILLIAM T. JOHNSON, PRINTER TO THE STATE. I 852. LIS T OF STOCKHOLDERS, (With the amonnt of Stock held by each Jan. 1, 1851,) IN THE BANKS OF MAINE. Prepared and published agreeably to a Resolve of the Legislature, approved March 21, 1839 ; By JOHN G. SAWYER. Secretary of State. ~u1lusta: WILLIAM T. JOHNSON, PRINTER TO THE STATE. 1 851 . STATE OF MAINE. Resolve requzrzng the Secretary of State to publislt a List of the Stockholders of the Banks in this State. RESOLVED, That the Secretary of State be and hereby is required annually to publish a List of the Stockholders in each Bank in this State, with the amount of Stock owned by each Stockholder agreeably to the returns made by law to the Legislature of this State; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to distribute to each town in this State, and also to each Bank in this State one copy of such printed list; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to require any Bank, which may neglect to make the returns required by law to the Legislature, to furnish him forthwith with a List of the Stockholders of such Bank, and also the amount of Stock owned by each Stockholder. -
Centennial Proceedings and Other Historical Facts and Incidents Relating to Newfane
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world’s books discoverable online. It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover. Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you. Usage guidelines Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you: + Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes. + Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. -
Honorable Paul Reiber, Chief Justice, Vermont Supreme Court From
115 STATE STREET, PHONE: (802) 828-2228 MONTPELIER, VT 05633-5201 FAX: (802) 828-2424 STATE OF VERMONT SENATE CHAMBER MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Paul Reiber, Chief Justice, Vermont Supreme Court From: Senator c 'ard Sears, Chair, Senate Committee on Judiciary Senator el, Chair, Senate Committee on Appropriations Date: February 015 Subject: Judiciary Budget We recognize that the Judiciary, like the Legislature, is a separate branch of government and has an extremely difficult job balancing fiscal resources against its mission that has as its key elements: the provision of equal access to justice, protection of individual rights, and the resolution of legal disputes fairly and in a timely manner. We commend the Judiciary for its willingness to work with us to address the fiscal challenges that we have faced over the years. As you know we again face a serious fiscal challenge in the upcoming FY 2016 budget. With the revenue downgrade we are facing a total shortfall for FY 2016 of $112 million in the General Fund. This represents an 8% shortfall from the resources needed to fund current services. The Governor's fiscal year 2016 budget includes a savings target of $500,000 for Judicial operations. The budget also envisioned potential reductions in FY 2016 pay act funding and other personnel savings which could create additional pressures on the Judiciary budget and the criminal justice system generally. The Governor further proposed language in the Budget Adjustment bill for a plan to produce such savings to be submitted by prior to March 31, 2015. As was the case in the House, we have chosen not to include any specific language in the Budget Adjustment bill regarding FY 2016 reduction. -
The Work of Isaac Hill in the Presidential Election of 1828
W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1931 The Work of Isaac Hill in the Presidential Election of 1828 Charles E. Perry College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Perry, Charles E., "The Work of Isaac Hill in the Presidential Election of 1828" (1931). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539624445. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-hr55-kn57 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. t m m m o f is m o b ii& IB TH2 PBBSXBBJrfliU* BLEGMOS OF 1828 b y C h a rles B* Perry* T m WOBE OW ISAAC Bill EbECIIOIf of ie a a b y Ctiarlas B* Parry* SUB3X223D IB W m nL lM Sm Of 2BB fiSWXEBBSBf9 O f OOiU-BGB O f WILLIAM ABB Hj£BT for the dagroe l i 4SfEB O f ABfS 1951 Tha Political Setting In Hew England "ll' ' "ih T ssac1' B lll* s lime* ''mrrZ^ T ^ 'mL ~ ~ * - 1 m m Bacfmrotmd of B ill *s BeTmblicantsgu fhe necessity Wm Understand lag It* - ** ~ • 5 TTI s To uth.• **««»'** «* ■»**• ■*■* <**»• *>* *► ** *► =** **■ «*•■ *** *•>.«•>- g Hie Appreat Iceship* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ — ~ « - ix A Surrey of Hie Career As Editor Prior to 1828 First tears of the Patriot* - - ~ «* - ~ ~ 14 Other A ctivities of Sill* «*--•*-*.**- - 14 His Course in the 1824 Else 11 on* «•*-*-* ** 19 Ho su it a o f the- E le c t io n o f Adams * *.■***• ~ 21 The Campaign For the Presidency^ 1826-1828 f ile Campaign Begun* ** **.**«*.**■ «* ** ** «*#»,«*,„. -
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #050 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 18th day of October, 2017, are as follows: BY GUIDRY, J.: 2017-CC-0482 PHILIP SHELTON v. NANCY PAVON (Parish of Orleans) After reviewing the applicable law, we hold that La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 971(F)(1)(a), which states that “[a]ny written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial body” is an “[a]ct in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech … in connection with a public issue,” must nonetheless satisfy the requirement of La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 971(A)(1), that such statements be made “in connection with a public issue….” We therefore conclude the court of appeal was correct in reversing the trial court’s ruling granting Dr. Shelton’s special motion to strike, and in awarding reasonable attorney fees and costs to Ms. Pavon as the prevailing party, to be determined by the trial court on remand. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed. AFFIRMED WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons. CLARK, J., dissents for the reasons given by Justice Weimer. HUGHES, J., dissents with reasons. CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. 10/18/17 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 2017-CC-0482 PHILIP SHELTON VERSUS NANCY PAVON ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS GUIDRY, Justice We granted the writ application to determine whether the court of appeal erred in reversing the trial court’s ruling granting the plaintiff’s special motion to strike defendant’s reconventional demand for defamation, pursuant to La. -
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. -
In the Supreme Court of Iowa
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 18–1050 Filed June 14, 2019 ALEX WAYNE WESTRA, Appellant, vs. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Arthur E. Gamble, Judge. A motorist appeals a district court ruling denying his petition for judicial review of an agency decision suspending his driver’s license for one year. AFFIRMED. Matthew T. Lindholm of Gourley, Rehkemper, & Lindholm, P.L.C., West Des Moines, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Robin G. Formaker, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 2 MANSFIELD, Justice. This case began when a driver tried to reverse course. But it presents the question whether our court should reverse course. Specifically, should we overrule precedent and apply the exclusionary rule to driver’s license revocation proceedings when an Iowa statute dictates otherwise? In Westendorf v. Iowa Department of Transportation, 400 N.W.2d 553, 557 (Iowa 1987), superseded by statute as recognized by Brownsberger v. Department of Transportation, 460 N.W.2d 449, 450–51 (Iowa 1990), we declined to apply the exclusionary rule so long as the enumerated statutory conditions for license revocation were met. Later, the general assembly enacted a limited exception to Westendorf. See Iowa Code § 321J.13(6) (2017). This requires the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) to rescind revocation of a driver’s license if there has been a criminal prosecution for operating while intoxicated (OWI) and the criminal case determined that the peace officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe a violation of the OWI laws had occurred or that the chemical test was otherwise inadmissible or invalid. -
General Election Results: Governor, P
1798 Isaac Tichenor [Federalist] 6,211 66.4% Moses Robinson [Democratic Republican] 2,805 30.0% Scattering 332 3.6% Total votes cast 9,348 33.6% 1799 Isaac Tichenor [Federalist] 7,454 64.2% Israel Smith [Democratic Republican] 3,915 33.7% Scattering 234 2.0% Total votes cast 11,603 100.0% 1800 Isaac Tichenor [Federalist] 6,444 63.4% Israel Smith [Democratic Republican] 3,339 32.9% Scattering 380 3.7% Total votes cast 10,163 100.0% 1802 Isaac Tichenor [Federalist] 7,823 59.8% Israel Smith [Democratic Republican] 5,085 38.8% Scattering 181 1.4% Total votes cast 13,089 100.0% 1803 Isaac Tichenor [Federalist] 7,940 58.0% Jonathan Robinson [Democratic Republican] 5,408 39.5% Scattering 346 2.5% Total votes cast 13,694 100.0% 1804 2 Isaac Tichenor [Federalist] 8,075 55.7% Jonathan Robinson [Democratic Republican] 6,184 42.7% Scattering 232 1.6% Total votes cast 14,491 100.0% 2 Totals do not include returns from 31 towns that were declared illegal. General Election Results: Governor, p. 2 of 29 1805 3 Isaac Tichenor [Federalist] 8,683 61.1% Jonathan Robinson [Democratic Republican] 5,054 35.6% Scattering 479 3.4% Total votes cast 14,216 100.0% 3 Totals do not include returns from 22 towns that were declared illegal. 1806 4 Isaac Tichenor [Federalist] 8,851 55.0% Jonathan Robinson [Democratic Republican] 6,930 43.0% Scattering 320 2.0% Total votes cast 16,101 100.0% 4 Totals do not include returns from 21 towns that were declared illegal. -
Cornelius P. Van Ness [Democratic Republican] 11,479 Dudley Chase
1823 Cornelius P. Van Ness [Democratic Republican] 11,479 85.6% Dudley Chase 1,088 8.1% Scattering 843 6.3% Total votes cast 13,410 100.0% 1824 Cornelius P. Van Ness [Democratic Republican] 13,413 85.3% Joel Doolittle 1,962 12.5% Scattering 346 2.2% Total votes cast 15,721 100.0% 1825 Cornelius P. Van Ness [Democratic Republican] 12,229 98.4% Scattering 195 1.6% Total votes cast 12,424 100.0% 1826 Ezra Butler [Democratic Republican] 8,966 63.3% Joel Doolittle 3,157 22.3% Scattering 2,037 14.4% Total votes cast 14,160 100.0% 1827 Ezra Butler [Democratic Republican] 13,699 85.2% Joel Doolittle 1,951 12.1% Scattering 433 2.7% Total votes cast 16,083 100.0% 1828 Samuel C. Crafts [National Republican] 16,285 91.9% Joel Doolittle [Jacksonian] 926 5.2% Scattering 513 2.9% Total votes cast 17,724 100.0% General Election Results: Governor, p. 6 of 29 1829 Samuel C. Crafts [National Republican] 14,325 55.8% Herman Allen [Anti-Masonic] 7,346 28.6% Joel Doolittle [Jacksonian] 3,973 15.5% Scattering 50 0.2% Total votes cast 25,694 44.2% 6 Though Allen of Burlington declined to identify himself with the party, he received the anti- masonic vote. 1830* Samuel C. Crafts [National Republican] 13,476 43.9% William A. Palmer [Anti-Masonic] 10,923 35.6% Ezra Meech [Jacksonian] 6,285 20.5% Scattering 37 0.1% Total votes cast 30,721 100.0% 1831* William A. -
H. Doc. 108-222
FOURTH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1795, TO MARCH 3, 1797 FIRST SESSION—December 7, 1795, to June 1, 1796 SECOND SESSION—December 5, 1796, to March 3, 1797 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE—June 8, 1795, to June 26, 1795 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—JOHN ADAMS, of Massachusetts PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—HENRY TAZEWELL, 1 of Virginia; SAMUEL LIVERMORE, 2 of New Hampshire; WILLIAM BINGHAM, 3 of Pennsylvania SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—SAMUEL A. OTIS, of Massachusetts DOORKEEPER OF THE SENATE—JAMES MATHERS, of New York SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—JONATHAN DAYTON, 4 of New Jersey CLERK OF THE HOUSE—JOHN BECKLEY, 5 of Virginia SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—JOSEPH WHEATON, of Rhode Island DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—THOMAS CLAXTON CONNECTICUT GEORGIA Richard Potts 17 18 SENATORS SENATORS John Eager Howard Oliver Ellsworth 6 James Gunn REPRESENTATIVES James Hillhouse 7 James Jackson 14 8 Jonathan Trumbull George Walton 15 Gabriel Christie 9 Uriah Tracy Josiah Tattnall 16 Jeremiah Crabb 19 REPRESENTATIVES AT LARGE 20 REPRESENTATIVES AT LARGE William Craik Joshua Coit 21 Abraham Baldwin Gabriel Duvall Chauncey Goodrich Richard Sprigg, Jr. 22 Roger Griswold John Milledge George Dent James Hillhouse 10 James Davenport 11 KENTUCKY William Hindman Nathaniel Smith SENATORS Samuel Smith Zephaniah Swift John Brown Thomas Sprigg 12 Uriah Tracy Humphrey Marshall William Vans Murray Samuel Whittlesey Dana 13 REPRESENTATIVES DELAWARE Christopher Greenup MASSACHUSETTS SENATORS Alexander D. Orr John Vining SENATORS Henry Latimer MARYLAND Caleb Strong 23 REPRESENTATIVE AT LARGE SENATORS Theodore Sedgwick 24 John Patten John Henry George Cabot 25 1 Elected December 7, 1795. -
District Court Discipline of State Prosecutor for Failure to Enforce State Laws*
NOTES DISTRICT COURT DISCIPLINE OF STATE PROSECUTOR FOR FAILURE TO ENFORCE STATE LAWS* 'FAILURE of public prosecutors to enforce state laws has evoked in the sev- eral states a variety of constitutional and legislative responses.' In most states a lax prosecutor can be removed from office without resort to cumbersome im- peachment procedures;2 in others, prosecutorial indifference is, in specified in- stances, a criminal offense.3 To this arsenal a federal district court has added a new and unprecedented weapon of considerable political potential-exclu- sion from practice before that particular court. The suspension and disbarment of attorneys for unethical conduct has long been a judicial prerogative,4 and state tribunals generally have not hesitated to * Wilbur v. Howard, 70 F. Supp. 930 (E.D.Ky. 1947). 1. In Colorado mandamus will lie to compel prosecution of peddlers of obscene lit- erature. COLO. STAT. ANN., c. 48, § 219 (1) (Supp. 1946). Georgia solicitors receive rela- tively high fees for gambling convictions. GA. CODE ANN. § 24-2904 (1937). The gover- nor of one state is free to shuffle the state's attorneys around the various districts. FLA. STAT. ANN. § 27.14 (1943). A number of states permit temporary replacement of a recalcitrant district attorney by the attorney general, KAN. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 21-921 (Corrick, 1935) ; N. J. STAT. ANN . § 2:182-12 (1939); WA H. REv. STAT. § 112-1 (Remington, Supp. 1940) ; or by the courts, IND. STAT. ANN. § 49-2505 (Burns, 1933) ; N. D. Ray. COaa § 11-1605 (1943). For appraisal of these and other types of prosecutor controls see DeLong and Baker, The Prosecuting Attorney: Provisions of Law Organizing the Office, 23 J. -
Daniel Kellogg (1791-1875) Family Papers, 1807-1862 MS 26
Daniel Kellogg (1791-1875) Family Papers, 1807-1862 MS 26 Introduction This collection contains the papers of the family of Daniel Kellogg (1791-1875), a justice on the Vermont Supreme Court from Brattleboro, Vermont, covering the period 1808-1862. The collection was given to the Vermont Historical Society by Susan K. Wright of Westminster, Vermont, in May 1949. It is stored in one archival flip top box and consumes .5 linear feet of shelf space. Biographical Note Daniel Kellogg was born in Amherst, Massachusetts, in 1791. He graduated from Williams College in 1810. He studied law with General Martin Field in Newfane, Vermont, and was admitted to the Vermont bar in 1812. He started his legal career at Rockingham, Vermont, where he remained until he moved to Brattleboro in 1855. Kellogg was elected judge of probate in Windham County, 1819-1820, and state’s attorney for the same county. He was also U.S. district attorney for Vermont, 1829-1841. He held military rank as adjutant inspector-general of Vermont’s militia. He served in the state House, and was a judge on the Vermont Supreme Court from 1845-1851. He was often a Democratic candidate for governor. Kellogg married three times: first to Jane McAffee of Rockingham; then to Merab Ann Bradley (who died in 1845); and lastly to Miranda M. Aldis, of St. Albans, Vermont. Of his three wives, only Merab Bradley is referred to in these papers. His children included: Henry Kellogg (1823-1844), who was a lawyer and alumnus of Williams College and drowned in 1844; George B.