Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Dicta

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7
41
Current Law Students / Re: Tabbing the Bluebook
« on: November 19, 2004, 12:55:38 PM »
Word on the grapevine for the legal writing exam at NSL.
We have a "memo" and a few squibs from cases and some statutes.
We have to read the memo, the squibs, the statutes and then determine where they belong in the memo and how to cite them.
Then we have 20 fill in the blank with info from the Bluebook.
We have 60 questions and 60 minutes. :P
Know this is really good preparation for the practice of law!
I should think we will need tabs!
Susan

42
Current Law Students / Re: Tabbing the Bluebook
« on: November 18, 2004, 09:36:14 PM »
I've got 25 tabs of various neon hues.....
Still won't be enough!
S

43
Current Law Students / Re: Funny Torts Hypo
« on: November 18, 2004, 02:18:56 PM »
Even though I have written many Torts Casebooks, Law Review articles, testified before congress, and am deceased (testate, of course), I have never taken a Torts exam, but assuming the nature of this area of law, the more causes of action you can “make,” the better - even if you find them so ridiculous as I do!
Quote
LMFAO!

44
Current Law Students / Re: 4-4 Decision in Supreme court.
« on: November 18, 2004, 02:16:21 PM »
good luck!

45
Current Law Students / Re: 4-4 Decision in Supreme court.
« on: November 17, 2004, 08:54:09 PM »
Will this help?

FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
28 U.S.C.A. § 2109

United States Code Annotated Currentness


Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (Refs & Annos)

 Part V. Procedure

 Chapter 133. Review--Miscellaneous Provisions (Refs & Annos)

§ 2109. Quorum of Supreme Court justices absent





If a case brought to the Supreme Court by direct appeal from a district court cannot be heard and determined because of the absence of a quorum of qualified justices, the Chief Justice of the United States may order it remitted to the court of appeals for the circuit including the district in which the case arose, to be heard and determined by that court either sitting in banc or specially constituted and composed of the three circuit judges senior in commission who are able to sit, as such order may direct. The decision of such court shall be final and conclusive. In the event of the disqualification or disability of one or more of such circuit judges, such court shall be filled as provided in chapter 15 of this title.





In any other case brought to the Supreme Court for review, which cannot be heard and determined because of the absence of a quorum of qualified justices, if a majority of the qualified justices shall be of opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next ensuing term, the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.





CREDIT(S)



(June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 963.)



HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES



Revision Notes and Legislative Reports



1948 Acts. Based on portions of section 29 of Title 15, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Commerce and Trade, and section 45 of Title 49, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Transportation (Feb. 11, 1903, c. 544, § 2, 32 Stat. 823; Mar. 3, 1911, c. 231, § 291, 36 Stat. 1167; June 9, 1944, c. 239, 58 Stat. 272).



Section consolidates portions of section 29 of Title 15, U.S.C., 1940 ed., and section 45 of Title 49, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with changes of substance and phraseology.



The revised section includes the principal provisions of sections 29 and 45 of Titles 15 and 49, U.S.C. 1940 ed., respectively, in case of the absence of a quorum of qualified Justices of the Supreme Court.



Sections 29 and 45 of Titles 15 and 49, U.S.C., 1940 ed., respectively, were identical and were applicable only to decisions of three- judge courts in antitrust cases under section 107 of said Title 15 and Interstate Commerce cases under sections 1, 8, and 12 of said Title 49, "or any other acts having a like purpose that may hereinafter be enacted." The revised section broadens and extends the application of such provisions to include "any case involving a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of a district court or a district court of three judges which cannot be heard and determined because of the absence of a quorum of qualified justices." It includes direct appeals in criminal cases under section 3731 of Title 18 (H.R.1600, 80th Cong.).



Sections 29 and 45 of Titles 15 and 49, U.S.C., 1940 ed., respectively provided that the Supreme Court certify the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals and that the Senior Circuit Judge, qualified to participate should designate himself and two other circuit judges next in order of seniority. Other provisions were made for designation of circuit judges from other circuits in case of insufficient circuit judges being available in the circuit.



The revised section permits the Chief Justice of the United States to designate the "court of appeals" to hear the case in banc or by means of a specially constituted court of appeals composed of the three circuit judges senior in commission who are able to sit. In case of disqualification or disability, the court shall be filled by designation and assignment as provided in chapter 15 of this title.



The provisions of section 29 of Title 15, U.S.C., 1940 ed., and section 45 of Title 49, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to time for appeal are incorporated in section 2101 of this title. The provisions of said sections for direct appeal to the Supreme Court are retained in said Titles 15 and 49.



The second paragraph of the revised section is new. It recognizes the necessity of final disposition of litigation in which appellate review has been had and further review by the Supreme Court is impossible for lack of a quorum of qualified justices.





LAW REVIEW COMMENTARIES



Judicial bias and financial interest as grounds for disqualification of federal judges. Seth E. Bloom, 35 Case W.Res.L.Rev. 662 (1984-85).





AMERICAN LAW REPORTS



In banc proceedings in Federal Courts of Appeals. 37 ALR Fed 274.





LIBRARY REFERENCES



American Digest System



Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and procedure in exercise thereof, see Federal Courts 441 et seq.



Encyclopedias



Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and procedure in exercise thereof, see C.J.S. Federal Courts § 193 et seq.

32 Am. Jur. 2d, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 335, 356.



Forms



2 Fed. Proc. Forms L Ed, Appeal, Certiorari, and Review § 3:692.

2 Fed. Proc. Forms L Ed, Appeal, Certiorari, and Review § 3:981.

7 Fed. Proc. Forms L Ed, Criminal Procedure § 20:1192.



Texts and Treatises



2 Fed. Proc. L Ed Appeal, Certiorari, and Review §§ 3:212, 635, 642.

2A Fed. Proc. L Ed Appeal, Certiorari, and Review (1994) § 3:708.

9 Bkr L Ed, Legislative History § 82:22.



NOTES OF DECISIONS



Affirmance of judgment 3

Law of case 4

Remittance to court of appeals

Remittance to court of appeals - Generally 1

Remittance to court of appeals - Disqualification of all justices 2



1. Remittance to court of appeals--Generally



Where a quorum of six Justices qualified to hear case was wanting, the cause was certified and transferred to the circuit court of appeals pursuant to the Act of Feb. 11, 1903, c. 544, § 2, 32 Stat. 823, as amended. U.S. v. Aluminum Company of America, U.S.N.Y.1944, 64 S.Ct. 1281, 322 U.S. 716, 88 L.Ed. 1557.



2. ---- Disqualification of all justices



Even if all Justices of the Supreme Court are disqualified in a particular case under section 455 of this title, this section authorizes the Chief Justice to remit a direct appeal to the court of appeals for final decision by judges not so disqualified. U. S. v. Will, U.S.Ill.1980, 101 S.Ct. 471, 449 U.S. 200, 66 L.Ed.2d 392.



3. Affirmance of judgment



On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, four members of the Court disqualified themselves in this case, and because of this absence of a quorum, 28 U.S.C. Section 1, and since a majority of the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of Court, the judgment and order are affirmed under 28 U.S.C. Section 2109, which provides that under these circumstances "the Court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court." Arizona v. Ash Grove Cement Co., Ariz. 1983, 103 S.Ct. 1173, 459 U.S. 1191, 75 L.Ed.2d 425. See, also, Arizona v. United States District Court for District of Arizona, U.S.Ariz. 1983, 103 S.Ct. 1173, 459 U.S. 1191, 75 L.Ed.2d 425.



Where four members of the Supreme Court had disqualified themselves in case and where a majority of the qualified Justices were of the opinion that the case could not be heard and determined at the next term of the Court, the judgment of the court appeals was affirmed under provision of this section that under these circumstances "the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court". Prichard v. United State of America, U.S.Ky.1950, 70 S.Ct. 1029, 339 U.S. 974, 94 L.Ed. 1380. See, also, Arizona v. Ash Grove Cement Co., U.S.Ariz. 1983, 103 S.Ct. 1173, 459 U.S. 1191, 75 L.Ed.2d 425; Arizona v. United States District Court for District of Arizona, U.S.Ariz. 1983, 103 S.Ct. 1173, 459 U.S. 1191, 75 L.Ed.2d 425; Sloan v. Nixon, N.Y.1974, 95 S.Ct. 218, 419 U.S. 958, 42 L.Ed.2d 174, rehearing denied 95 S.Ct. 690, 419 U.S. 1097, 42 L.Ed.2d 689.



4. Law of case



Law of case doctrine did not prevent consideration of whether extension of Medicare and Social Security taxes to salaries of sitting federal judges violated Compensation Clause, by virtue of earlier denial of petition for certiorari for lack of quorum of Justices who were unaffected by issue; although normally having "same effect as" affirmance by equally divided court, denial of petition for certiorari because of lack of quorum did not involve previous hearing on merits, as required for operation of law of case doctrine. U.S. v. Hatter, U.S.2001, 121 S.Ct. 1782, 532 U.S. 557, 149 L.Ed.2d 820, on remand 15 Fed.Appx. 835, 2001 WL 838425, on remand 21 Fed.Appx. 928, 2001 WL 1335136. Courts  99(6)



28 U.S.C.A. § 2109, 28 USCA § 2109





Current through P.L. 108-356 approved 10-21-04.

46
Current Law Students / Re: Funny Torts Hypo
« on: November 17, 2004, 08:40:13 PM »
Maybe you just don't have a sense of humor    ???


quote author=boxergirl link=topic=1054.msg6222#msg6222 date=1100731745]
Why is it that all of the hypos that are posted as "funny" are not funny.  There ARE funny hypos out there... These are not "funny". 
Quote

47
Current Law Students / Re: Tabbing the Bluebook
« on: November 17, 2004, 06:33:13 AM »
Yep, sometimes we need to be reminded of the obvious.
Also, I made an outline of commonly used cites. We may bring in any notes we like...
Have you taken a bb exam yet?
Thanks,
Susan

48
Current Law Students / Tabbing the Bluebook
« on: November 15, 2004, 09:42:11 PM »
Ok, time for the Intro to Law/Legal Writing exam.
Just wondering what everyone is tabbing and if anyone has a special method?
Lawgirl?
Susan   ???

49
Current Law Students / Re: 4-4 Decision in Supreme court.
« on: November 14, 2004, 07:41:14 PM »
Yippee! Something else to distract me from studying! Thanks PT.
Susan :-*

50
Current Law Students / Re: 4-4 Decision in Supreme court.
« on: November 14, 2004, 05:04:04 PM »
Speaking of Supreme Court trivia, anybody (ptlaw) know any "LIGHT" reading on the subject?
Susan

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7