DOCSLIB.ORG

In This Issue Chinese Judges Program 6 Summer Fellows 14 Judicial Independence 9 Board of Directors 16 Employment Law Workshop 3 Hon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In This Issue Chinese Judges Program 6 Summer Fellows 14 Judicial Independence 9 Board of Directors 16 Employment Law Workshop 3 Hon Issue Number 7 Winter 2007-08 Trading Courtrooms for IJA Classrooms n July 8-13 the Institute welcomed forty-six new judges, the largest class yet, to the New Appellate Judges Seminar, a program for O state and federal judges with up to four years of experience on the appellate bench. Since the Seminar was first held in 1956, it has offered new appellate judges the op- portunity to explore current issues of sub- stantive law and the challenges unique to the appellate courts. Each year Professors Oscar G. Chase and Samuel Estreicher, IJA Executive Co-Directors, lead a resi- dent faculty composed of academics and experienced jurists, most of whom Deciding moot court case Hall St. Associates v. Mattel: Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers (Connecticut are themselves alumni of the Seminar Supreme Court), Judge Cynthia Westcott Rice (Ohio Court of Appeals), Judge Margaret A. Ryan and members or Board members of the (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces), and Judges Neil Gorsuch and Jerome A. Holmes (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit) Institute. The Seminar is held in conjunc- tion with the Federal Judicial Center’s Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, Ohio, South Court of Criminal Appeals; the U.S. Court orientation for new federal judges and Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and of Appeals for the Armed Forces; and the in recent years has been conducted with Washington; the newly formed Supreme Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and Court of the generous support of West Group and Court of the Virgin Islands; the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, Canada. Cravath, Swaine & Moore. Appeals of the Commonwealth of Puerto At the opening dinner, newly appointed This year judges came from the ap- Rico; the Cherokee Supreme Court, New York University Professor Arthur pellate courts of Arkansas, California, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; the R. Miller delivered the keynote address Colorado, Connecticut, the District of U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and on the topic of judicial independence. Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Tenth Circuits; the Navy-Marine Corps He described past political assaults by In This Issue Chinese Judges Program 6 Summer Fellows 14 Judicial Independence 9 Board of Directors 16 Employment Law Workshop 3 Hon. Albert Rosenblatt 5 2007-08 Calendar 9 Members 16 Membership Meeting 5 Community News 10 Contact IJA 18 Brennan Lecture 7 Special Tribute 12 Membership Form 19 Professor Arthur R. Miller Congress and the White House, includ- ing the House of Representatives; the 1804 impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase, a Federalist, after his decision to hang John Fries for treason angered Jeffersonian Republicans; and Franklin Roosevelt’s Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, which sought to pack the Court with politically allied justices. “It’s very easy for you to become paranoid about your independence,” he said. “And just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not chasing you.” To date, however, the judicial branch has prevailed; Professor Miller cited the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Nixon, which put limits on Top: Oral Argument: Sheila L. Birnbaum and J. Russell Jackson; Above: Seminar faculty Judge executive privilege, as evidence of the Diarmuid O’Scannlain (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit), Judge Harriet Lansing judiciary’s fortitude. Professor Miller (Minnesota Court of Appeals), Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard (Indiana Supreme Court), Judge Rosemary Barkett (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit), Justice Bea Ann Smith nonetheless urged vigilance: execu- (Third District Court of Appeals of Texas, retired), and Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson tive reaching in the War on Terror, as (Wisconsin Supreme Court) well as irresponsible media portrayals of judicial rulings as activist or anti- the Complex Mass Tort and Insurance for the Ninth Circuit), and Justice Bea family, threaten judicial independence. Group at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Ann Smith (retired, Court of Appeals According to Professor Miller, judges & Flom LLP, argue Hall St. Associates v. of Texas for the Third District). must be more visible and educate the Mattel with Skadden partner J. Russell After the oral argument and decision- public on their essential role as an Jackson. Following the argument the making, Dr. Isaiah M. Zimmerman of independent authority on the rule of student judges divided into panels to the Washington School of Psychiatry, law. “You judges with independence discuss and decide the case. The fac- a noted speaker on judicial collegial- properly employed represent the thin ulty bench then went through the same ity and group dynamics, led a discus- black robe that separates our civiliza- process in front of the entire group. sion on appellate decision-making tion from the jungle.” The panel of judges, presided by Judge processes as seen from the perspec- Every year the sessions on judicial Martha Craig Daughtrey (U.S. Court tive of group psychology. Discussion decision-making begin with a case of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit), in- participants included Judge Rosemary from the U.S. Supreme Court’s up- cluded IJA Board member Chief Justice Barkett (U.S. Court of Appeals for coming docket, which is argued in a Shirley S. Abrahamson (Supreme the Eleventh Circuit), Judge Harriet moot court by two members of a firm Court of Wisconsin), Justice Roderick Lansing (Minnesota Court of Appeals), represented on the IJA Board. This L. Ireland (Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard year, we were delighted to hear Board of Massachusetts), Judge Diarmuid (Supreme Court of Indiana), and member Sheila L. Birnbaum, head of O’Scannlain (U.S. Court of Appeals IJA Board Member Judge John M. Walker Jr. (senior judge and former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit). Other substantive sessions included Frontiers in Legal Research, by Judge Barkett, Stacy Slattery Richards (West Group), and NYU Law Librarians Gretchen Feltes and Annmarie Zell; Criminal Law with Judge John Gleeson (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York) and NYU Law Professor Rachel Barkow; and the Craft of Judging, with the whole judicial faculty. Professor Timothy Terrell (Emory University School of Law) taught three engaging and popular sessions on Employment Law Workshop participants Opinion Writing, ending with a dialogue with Judge Daughtrey and Justice Smith. Judge Lansing, Chief Justice Shepard, and Professor Bruce A. Green (Fordham Federal Judges on Law School) presented and discussed several provocative hypos for Issues in Judicial Ethics. Judge O’Scannlain, Board member Judge Robert A. Katzmann the Cutting Edge of (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit), and Professor William Eskridge (Yale Law School) engaged in a lively discussion of Statutory Interpretation. Employment Law Building on the keynote address, Chief Justice Abrahamson, Professor Chase, he tenth annual Workshop on Hon. Bernice B. Donald, a district Justice Ireland, Judge Walker, and Employment Law for Federal court judge for the Western District Deborah Goldberg (Director of the Judges took place on March 12- of Tennessee, Joseph D. Garrison of Democracy Program, Brennan Center 13, 2007. Sponsored jointly by Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Chimes & for Justice) discussed pressing issues in T the Institute, NYU’s Center for Labor Richardson, and Kathleen McKenna of judicial independence. and Employment Law, and the Federal Proskauer Rose opened the Workshop This year the Institute was pleased Judicial Center, this program provides with their discussion of case man- to invite NYU School of Law Professor the opportunity for federal judges to ex- agement issues, in particular pro se Norman Dorsen to give a lunch talk amine the labor and employment issues cases, summary judgment and technol- on U.S. Supreme Court Justices he that increasingly dominate their dockets. ogy. Acting as the panel’s moderator, has known. At a subsequent luncheon Since the program’s inception in Garrison offered his thoughts on case Professor Chase presented some of his 1998, the Workshop has aimed to bring management techniques and suggested original research on comparative deci- together experienced judges with prac- models of interrogation, requests for sion-making practices from his book, Law, titioners and academics to frame the production and protective orders. Culture, and Ritual: Disputing Systems in discussion around federal judges’ needs, The second panel, which included Cross-Cultural Context (see the article and to provide guidance and time for re- Hon. John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District on the book in IJA Report Issue 4, avail- framing issues, theories, and perceptions Court for the Southern District of able on the IJA Web site). Near the end about employment law cases. Forty-five New York, Anne L. Clark of Vladeck, of the Seminar the attendees and faculty federal judges from around the country Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, and attended a festive, relaxing dinner at the convened to discuss case management, Kenneth A. Margolis of Kauff, McClain & waterfront Water Club Restaurant. evidence issues, use of experts, elec- McGuire, discussed evidence issues and We look forward to welcoming the tronic discovery, labor law and ERISA the use of experts. The panel focused on attendees of next year’s New Appellate preemption, court-based/-annexed me- stray remarks, comparators, statistics, Judges Seminar on July 13-18, 2008. n diation of employment disputes, class direct evidence, prior bad acts, Rule 412, and collective actions, sex and racial dis- the use of mental health experts, econo- Reporting provided by the Law Magazine. crimination and jury instruction. mists and CPA’s on damages, “social Left: Electronic Discovery: Judge Denise L. Cote (U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y.), Pearl Zuchlewski (Kraus & Zuchlewski), and Theodore O. Rogers Jr. (Sullivan & Cromwell); Right: Class and Collective Actions: Mark Dichter (Morgan Lewis & Bockius), Darnley Stewart (Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman), and Judge Denny Chin (U.S.
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]
  • DEAN & DELUCA NEW YORK, INC., Et Al., Debtors. 1
    20-10916-mew Doc 315 Filed 09/17/20 Entered 09/17/20 17:14:41 Main Document Pg 1 of 16 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK : In re: : Chapter 11 : DEAN & DELUCA NEW YORK, INC., et al., : Case No. 20-10916 (MEW) : Debtors. 1 : Jointly Administered : : : SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MARK LEONARDO IN SUPPORT OF DEBTORS’ APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION OF NUTTER MCCLENNAN & FISH LLP AS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COUNSEL TO THE DEBTORS I, Mark Leonardo, being duly sworn, state the following under penalty of perjury. 1. I am a partner in the law firm of Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP (“NM&F”), which maintains offices for the practice of law at 155 Seaport Blvd., Boston, Massachusetts, as well as in Hyannis, and am duly admitted to practice law in Massachusetts. 2. This Supplemental Declaration is provided as a supplement to Exhibit B of the Debtors’ Application For Entry Of An Order Authorizing The Employment And Retention Of Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP As Intellectual Property Counsel To The Debtors, ECF No. 167 (the “Initial Declaration”). 1 The Debtors in the Chapter 11 Cases and the last four digits of each Debtor's taxpayer identification number are as follows: Dean & Deluca New York, Inc. (3111); Dean & Deluca, Inc. (2998); Dean & Deluca Brands, Inc. (2878); Dean & Deluca International, LLC (8995); Dean & Deluca Small Format, LLC (1806); Dean & Deluca Atlanta, LLC (6678); Dean & Deluca Markets, LLC (2674). The registered address for the Debtors is 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. 20-10916-mew Doc 315 Filed 09/17/20 Entered 09/17/20 17:14:41 Main Document Pg 2 of 16 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition for Certiorari
    No. 17-________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- TYSON TIMBS AND A 2012 LAND ROVER LR2, Petitioners, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Indiana Supreme Court --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- DARPANA M. SHETH WESLEY P. H OTTOT* SAMUEL B. GEDGE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 10500 NE 8th Street, 901 North Glebe Road, Suite 1760 Suite 900 Bellevue, WA 98004 Arlington, VA 22203 (425) 646-9300 (703) 682-9320 [email protected] [email protected] *Counsel of Record [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioners are Tyson Timbs and his 2012 Land Rover LR2. Respondent is the State of Indiana. Addi- tional plaintiffs before the trial court were the J.E.A.N. Team Drug Task Force, the Marion Police Department, and the Grant County Sheriff ’s Department. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS
    [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]
  • Citation Matters: a Quick Guide to Correct Citation Form in Indiana by Prof
    WORDWISE Citation matters: a quick guide to correct citation form in Indiana By Prof. Joel M. Schumm egal citation is critical to provide use bold, Large and Small Caps, or Table 6 of the Bluebook provides courts with essential information other typefaces.2 a detailed list of abbreviations for many about your case. Incomplete or words that commonly appear in case Lincorrect citations may make it difficult 2. Indiana cases citations, such as Corp. (Corporation) or impossible to find the source. Sloppy Citation of a case should include the or N. (North[ern]). citations may also suggest carelessness name of the case, the Reporter and pages Geographic terms, like “State of” or that could lead some judges to be skep- on which it is located, and the court and City of,” should almost always be omitted. tical of other parts of a brief. The goal of year it was decided. For example: K.F. v. this short article is to provide some fairly St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., 909 2.2 Reporter and pinpoint basic but important information about N.E.2d 1063, 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Indiana cases appear in the North- citations of the most common sources eastern reporter, currently N.E.3d. If in Indiana. 2.1 Abbreviating words referring to information taken from a Most Indiana court rules shed no Bluebook Rule 10.2.1 provides a specific page of the case, be sure to in- light on citation, but Appellate Rule 22 litany of rules for case names, which clude the pinpoint citation.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Courts of the United States
    68 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL include the Administrative Assistant to of procedure to be followed by the the Chief Justice, the Clerk, the Reporter lower courts of the United States. of Decisions, the Librarian, the Marshal, Court Term The term of the Court the Director of Budget and Personnel, begins on the first Monday in October the Court Counsel, the Curator, the and lasts until the first Monday in Director of Data Systems, and the Public October of the next year. Approximately 8,000 cases are filed with the Court in Information Officer. the course of a term, and some 1,000 Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate applications of various kinds are filed jurisdiction has been conferred upon the each year that can be acted upon by a Supreme Court by various statutes under single Justice. the authority given Congress by the Access to Facilities The Supreme Court Constitution. The basic statute effective is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 at this time in conferring and controlling p.m., Monday through Friday, except on jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may Federal legal holidays. Unless the Court be found in 28 U.S.C. 1251, 1253, or Chief Justice orders otherwise, the 1254, 1257–1259, and various special Clerk’s office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 statutes. Congress has no authority to p.m., Monday through Friday, except on change the original jurisdiction of this Federal legal holidays. The library is Court. open to members of the bar of the Court, Rulemaking Power Congress has from attorneys for the various Federal time to time conferred upon the departments and agencies, and Members Supreme Court power to prescribe rules of Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Supp Deutch Declaration
    20-11684-dsj Doc 220 Filed 04/22/21 Entered 04/22/21 09:55:32 Main Document Pg 1 of 15 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) OLD OB, LLC1 ) Case No. 20-11684 (SMB) ) Debtor. ) ) SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PAUL H. DEUTCH IN SUPPORT OF DEBTOR’S APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION OF OMNI AGENT SOLUTIONS AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT EFFECTIVE AS OF AUGUST 24, 2020 I, Paul H. Deutch, under penalty of perjury, declare as follows: 1. I am the Executive Vice President of Omni Agent Solutions, Inc. (“Omni”). Except as otherwise noted, I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. I submit this supplemental declaration (the “Supplemental Declaration”) on behalf of Omni in support of the application 2 [Docket No. 204] (the “Section 327 Application”), of the Debtor for an order appointing Omni as administrative agent for the Debtor effective as of August 24, 2020 filed in the above-captioned bankruptcy case (the “Bankruptcy Case”). Except as otherwise indicated herein, I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called as a witness, would testify competently thereto. 2. The facts set forth below are based either upon my personal knowledge, discussions with other employees of Omni, or review of the client/matter records of Omni by me or by other employees of Omni. 1 The last four digits of the Debtor’s federal tax identification number is 3434.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    The History of the Indiana Trial Court System and Attempts at Renovation John G. Baker' Introduction Since the formation of Indiana as a territory to the present day, advocates of reform of Indiana's trial court system have enjoyed only limited and short-lived success. Throughout Indiana's history, advocates have addressed a number of issues; however, their goal of a single tier organization of trial courts and merit selection of all judges has proved elusive. This Article evaluates the history of the Indiana General Assembly's attempts to address the call for a more organized trial court system and judge selection process in Indiana. This history shows the general assembly's ambivalence in forgoing its control over parochial issues and its recalcitrance in surrendering control over not only the various dockets of the Indiana trial courts, but over the people who administer those dockets—the state's trial judges. As recently as 1986, the Indiana Judges Association advocated a series of reforms for the state's judicial system. 1 This proposal contained a number of changes which required legislative approval, but some required action only within the judicial branch itself. The 1986 proposal was based, in part, on the 2 recommendations advanced by the Indiana Judges Association in 1978. Specifically, the most recent suggestions championed were: 1) a unified, single- tier jurisdiction system of trial courts, 2) selection of all judges by a merit selection system, 3) total state funding of the court system, 4) improved judicial salaries, 5) improved court record keeping, and 6) reexamination of the change of venue and 3 change of judge rules.
    [Show full text]
  • An Empirical Study of the Ideologies of Judges on the Unites States
    JUDGED BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE IDEOLOGIES OF JUDGES ON THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Corey Rayburn Yung* Abstract: Although there has been an explosion of empirical legal schol- arship about the federal judiciary, with a particular focus on judicial ide- ology, the question remains: how do we know what the ideology of a judge actually is? For federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court, legal aca- demics and political scientists have offered only crude proxies to identify the ideologies of judges. This Article attempts to cure this deficiency in empirical research about the federal courts by introducing a new tech- nique for measuring the ideology of judges based upon judicial behavior in the U.S. courts of appeals. This study measures ideology, not by subjec- tively coding the ideological direction of case outcomes, but by determin- ing the degree to which federal appellate judges agree and disagree with their liberal and conservative colleagues at both the appellate and district court levels. Further, through regression analysis, several important find- ings related to the Ideology Scores emerge. First, the Ideology Scores in this Article offer substantial improvements in predicting civil rights case outcomes over the leading measures of ideology. Second, there were very different levels and heterogeneity of ideology among the judges on the studied circuits. Third, the data did not support the conventional wisdom that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appointed uniquely ideological judges. Fourth, in general judges appointed by Republican presidents were more ideological than those appointed by Democratic presidents.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment and Garnishment in the Federal Courts
    Michigan Law Review Volume 59 Issue 3 1961 Attachment and Garnishment in the Federal Courts Brainerd Currie The University of Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, Courts Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Brainerd Currie, Attachment and Garnishment in the Federal Courts, 59 MICH. L. REV. 337 (1961). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol59/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW Vol 59 JANUARY 1961 No. 3 ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS Brainerd Currie* I. TllE PROBLEM AND ITS ORIGINS ERSONAL injuries allegedly caused by the negligent manufac­ P ture of safety fuses used in blasting operations in a coal mine were suffered by Raymond Davis, apparently a citizen of Arkansas. The manufacturer, Ensign-Bickford Company, was a Connecticut corporation that could not be personally served with process within Arkansas. But it happened that two foreign corporations, ame­ nable to process in the state, were indebted in substantial amounts to Ensign-Bickford Company. Accordingly, counsel for Davis, in­ voking the diversity jurisdiction, filed an action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Without issue of sum­ mons, the plaintiff, in conformity with Arkansas statutes, sued out orders of general attachment, for notice by publication, and for warning the defendant.
    [Show full text]
  • March 18, 2020 Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge
    Revised: March 18, 2020 EMERGENCY INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PRACTICES IN LIGHT OF COVID-19 Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge Chambers Email: [email protected] Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, these Emergency Individual Rules and Practices apply to all matters before Judge Nathan (whether criminal or civil and whether involving a pro se party or all counseled parties), and they are a supplement to Judge Nathan’s standard Individual Rules and Practices. If there is a conflict between these Rules and Judge Nathan’s standard Individual Rules and Practices, these Rules control. 1. No Paper Submissions Absent Undue Hardship A. No papers, including courtesy hard copies of any filing or document, may be submitted to Chambers. All documents must be filed on ECF or, if permitted or required under the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices, emailed to [email protected]. B. In the event that a party or counsel is unable to submit a document electronically — either by ECF or email — the document may be mailed to the Court. To the maximum extent possible, however, this means of delivery should be avoided, as delivery of mail to the Court is likely to be delayed. 2. Conferences and Proceedings A. In Civil Cases. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, all conferences and proceedings in civil cases will be held by telephone. In some cases, the Court may direct one of the parties to set up a conference line. In all other cases, the parties should call into the Court’s dedicated conference line at (888) 363-4749, and enter Access Code 919-6964, followed by the pound (#) key.
    [Show full text]
  • Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)
    Federal Judges Association - Members by Circuit (as of January 3, 2017) 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Bruce M. Selya Jeffrey R. Howard Kermit Victor Lipez Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson Sandra L. Lynch United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby George Z. Singal John A. Woodcock, Jr. Jon David LeVy Nancy Torresen United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs Denise Jefferson Casper Douglas P. Woodlock F. Dennis Saylor George A. O'Toole, Jr. Indira Talwani Leo T. Sorokin Mark G. Mastroianni Mark L. Wolf Michael A. Ponsor Patti B. Saris Richard G. Stearns Timothy S. Hillman William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Joseph N. LaPlante Landya B. McCafferty Paul J. Barbadoro SteVen J. McAuliffe United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Daniel R. Dominguez Francisco Augusto Besosa Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory Juan M. Perez-Gimenez Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez United States District Court District of Rhode Island Ernest C. Torres John J. McConnell, Jr. Mary M. Lisi William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Barrington D. Parker, Jr. Christopher F. Droney Dennis Jacobs Denny Chin Gerard E. Lynch Guido Calabresi John Walker, Jr. Jon O. Newman Jose A. Cabranes Peter W. Hall Pierre N. LeVal Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Reena Raggi Robert A. Katzmann Robert D. Sack United States District Court District of Connecticut Alan H. NeVas, Sr. Alfred V. Covello Alvin W. Thompson Dominic J. Squatrito Ellen B.
    [Show full text]