In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
|
|
|
- Scott Clark
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 1 of 110 No In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit George K. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of Hawaii, et al. Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from a Judgment of United States District Court For the District of Hawaii Civ. No HG-BMK United States District Court Judge Helen Gillmor Sur-Reply in Opposition of Defendants Petition for Rehearing En Banc ALAN BECK Attorney at Law 2692 Harcourt Drive San Diego, California Telephone: (619) alan.alexander.beck@gmail.com STEPHEN D. STAMBOULIEH STAMBOULIEH LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 4008 Madison, MS Telephone: (601) stephen@sdslaw.us Attorneys for Appellant, George K. Young, Jr.
2 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 2 of 110 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction...1 Argument...1 I. The Monthly Reports Are Judicially Noticeable and Evidence of Past Practice....3 II. Gloucester is Inapplicable to the Current Situation....7 Conclusion Certificate of Compliance Certificate of Service ii
3 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 3 of 110 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd. v. G.G. exrel. Grimm, 137 S. Ct (2017)...7, 8 Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2001)... 7 Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d U.S. App. D.C. 314 (D.C. Cir. 2011)... 6 Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 961, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5498, *14, 2014 WL United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013)... 6 Statutes H.R.S. section , 2, 3, 4, 8 Rules Hawaii Revised Statutes, Police Dep t of Cty. Of Haw., Rules and Regulations Governing the Issuance of Licenses 10 (Oct. 22, 1997)...1, 2 Other Sources QZZAfKVayWDLYGBvtPeV-udXiYFRPj2xr9xCjqPqk... 5 El Larson, "Police Commission reviewing HPD's policies on letting the public carry guns", September 20 th, 2018, 4 "Firearm Registrations in Hawaii, 2017", pdf... 5 iii
4 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 4 of 110 T. Langford, "Police Commission: Why Is It So Hard To Get A Permit To Carry A Gun In This City?"Honolulu Civil Beat, November 2, 2018, 4 iv
5 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 5 of 110 Introduction Mr. Young files this sur-reply to address several material misrepresentations made in Defendants Reply brief 1. The relief sought in Mr. Young s complaint is to be issued a permit to carry a firearm. See ER 5. The only entity able to issue him a permit is the County of Hawaii via its Chief of Police. The County s written implementation of H.R.S. section is to limit open carry permits to security guards. The extra record evidence Defendants rely on should be ignored because as shown below it is neither properly before this court nor credible. Defendants Petition should be denied. Argument The County s ordinance is not an independent regulation. The rules and regulations are promulgated by the Chief of Police for the granting of authorization for the carrying of weapons as provided by section 134-9, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Police Dep t of Cty. Of Haw., Rules and Regulations Governing the Issuance of Licenses 10 (Oct. 22, 1997) at *1. It limits open carry permits to Licensed Employees which it defines as any person employed by a private detective or 1 Mr. Young s sur-reply focuses on the argument made in Section 1 of Defendants Reply. Most of the argument made in Section II and IV rehash argument that was addressed in the response and thus do not need to be addressed. As to Section III, Mr. Young directs this Court to San Diego County Gun Owners excellent amicus brief which thoroughly demonstrates that Defendants and their amici have seriously misconstrued the history at issue. 1
6 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 6 of 110 guard agency. Police Dep t of Cty. Of Haw., Rules and Regulations Governing the Issuance of Licenses 10 (Oct. 22, 1997) at *4, *11. Thus, Hawaii County s implementation of state law bans open carry for anyone other than private detectives or those employed at a guard agency. Even if this Court were to take the Hawaii Attorney General s opinion and the Counties amicus brief at face value, they have no probative value because the actual implementation of state law against Mr. Young by the County of Hawaii bans open carry for private citizens. However, this Court should not accept Defendants new position because it is inconsistent with their previous briefing. Defendants contend the State position is not at odds with its previous briefing. However, a faithful review of the record demonstrates otherwise. Rather than correct the County about the correct interpretation of state law, the State repeatedly endorsed the County s implementation of section as correct. In addition to the argument made in its first amicus brief, the State argued in its supplemental amicus: Hawai i does allow concealed carry for applicants in the "exceptional case" who "show[] reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property." Plaintiff is thus clearly wrong to claim Hawai i "completely ban[s] the carry of firearms, open or concealed." Instead, Hawai i allows public carry (via concealed carry)for those establishing a concrete self-defense need See Defendants Supplemental Amicus Brief at 7 Docket No. [91]. And later: Mor[e]over, Hawai i's regulation of public carry also does not severely burden, see id., any purported right to publicly carry firearms for self- 2
7 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 7 of 110 defense, because those with a special need to carry for self-defense -- i.e., those who can show "reason to fear injury;" see HRS have access to concealed carry licenses. Id at 8 fn. 6. Based on Defendants own representations, the Panel reasonably interpreted Hawaii law as a ban on open carry for private citizens. I. The Monthly Reports Are Judicially Noticeable and Evidence of Past Practice. Defendants argue that this Court should not consider the monthly reports Mr. Young submitted with his response because it is non-record evidence. That is ironic because Defendants heavily rely on three declarations that were attached to an amicus brief. Those declarations are not properly before this Court. Unlike those declarations, the monthly reports can be properly considered because they are judicially noticeable. Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows this Court to take judicial notice of facts that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. See Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The monthly reports are judicially noticeable because they are official government reports whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. Defendants do not and could not dispute the veracity of these reports. Equity requires these reports be considered, especially at this stage, because the Defendants opened the door to them by introducing extra record evidence. The attached 3
8 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 8 of 110 reports have been submitted to impeach the credibility of Defendants extra record evidence. 2 These reports demonstrate that Hawaii s past practice supports the Panel s interpretation of H.R.S. section The monthly reports by each County list the permits as security and citizen. At the end of the year, the authors of the annual report tally up all the security applications in order to produce a number for open carry permits issued and denied and then they tally up all the citizen applications denied producing a concealed carry number. For example, in 2017 the monthly reports submitted by the Counties to the State show 14 citizen applications were 2 Honolulu s position is especially suspect. The Honolulu Police Commission has recently expressed concern that the Honolulu Police Department s ( HPD ) licensing scheme violates the Constitution. In September it requested HPD disclose how it evaluates permits and HPD refuses to do so. Commissioner Sheehan recently said: If we don t have adequate regulations in place, then people s constitutional rights could be violated. T. Langford, Police Commission: Why Is It So Hard To Get A Permit To Carry A Gun In This City? Honolulu Civil Beat, November 2, 2018, (accessed 11/16/2018). See also El Larson, Police Commission reviewing HPD's policies on letting the public carry guns, September 20th 2018, (accessed 11/16/2018) ( Commissioner Steven Levinson says Honolulu needs to be ready because he expects more cases to come forward. This is our Hurricane Florence. It is a monster storm. It is out there, and its coming. And it s coming at us and if we do not have a defensible mechanism for passing upon applications for permission to exercise what the United States Supreme Court has now held is a fundamental individual constitutional right we're going to be in big trouble ). 4
9 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 9 of 110 received 3,4. See YoungAdd-127 to 221. The State took this figure to create their annual report which states: Hawaii s county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed carry of firearms in public. Statewide in 2017, 225 employees of private security firms applied for and were issued carry licenses, and there were no denials. A total of 14 private citizens applied for a concealed carry license in 2017, including seven in the City and County of Honolulu, three in Maui County, two in Hawaii County, and two in Kauai County; all applicants were denied by the respective county s police chief. 5 The State s past practice of treating citizen applications as interchangeable with concealed carry applications demonstrates open carry permits have always been reserved for security guards. Defendants falsely claim that the Young Panel established a constitutional rule that will impose strict scrutiny on any public-carry. As a preliminary matter, 3 These reports were obtained via a Uniform Information Practices Act request which is Hawaii s version of the Freedom of Information Act. 4 The Hawaii Firearms Coalition has uploaded all 18 years of monthly reports from the Counties onto their website. A review of those monthly reports along with the publicly available annual reports demonstrates that the past practice of the State of Hawaii has always been to treat citizen carry applications as interchangeable with concealed carry permits. See (accessed 11/21/2018). 5 See Firearm Registrations in Hawaii, 2017, pdf at *9. 5
10 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 10 of 110 the Panel did not even apply strict scrutiny. The Young Panel simply applied Circuit precedent which holds that: [a] law that imposes such a severe restriction on the core right of selfdefense that it amounts to a destruction of the [Second Amendment] right, is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny. Heller, 554 U.S. at 629 (internal quotations omitted). By contrast, if a challenged law does not implicate a core Second Amendment right, or does not place a substantial burden on the Second Amendment right, we may apply intermediate scrutiny. See, e.g., [United States v. ]Chovan, 735 F.3d at ; cf. Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244, 1257, 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ( [A] regulation that imposes a substantial burden upon the core right of self-defense protected by the Second Amendment must have a strong justification, whereas a regulation that imposes a less substantial burden should be proportionately easier to justify. ). See Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 961, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5498, *14, 2014 WL Abiding by Circuit precedent, the Young Panel applied a categorical approach because both State law and the County of Hawaii s implementation of State law result in a destruction of the Second Amendment right. Further, the hyperbolic statement that somehow the Ninth Circuit just established a constitutional rule that will impose strict scrutiny on any public carry law that Hawaii or California or Oregon or any other State enacts in the future[] is absurd and farcical. See Reply, p. 8. As stated previously, no such pronouncement was made. Secondly, the suggestion that states in other Circuits could somehow be bound by the Panel s Opinion is a complete fabrication. It is well-settled law that: 6
11 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 11 of 110 an opinion of [this] court is binding within [the Ninth] circuit, not elsewhere in the country. The courts of appeals, and even the lower courts of other circuits, may decline to follow the rule we announce-- and often do. This ability to develop different interpretations of the law among the circuits is considered a strength of our system. It allows experimentation with different approaches to the same legal problem, so that when the Supreme Court eventually reviews the issue it has the benefit of percolation within the lower courts. Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, (9th Cir. 2001). Despite Defendants categorically false misreading of the Panel s Opinion, this Court is still free to apply intermediate scrutiny to carry restrictions which do not impose a substantial burden on the right to self-defense. II. Gloucester is Inapplicable to the Current Situation. Defendants claim that Courts often vacate and remand opinions in light of formal interpretations rendered by executive agencies. However, the only case Defendants cite to support that proposition is completely inapposite to Mr. Young s case. In Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd. v. G.G. exrel. Grimm, 137 S. Ct (2017), the Fourth Circuit was acting on a guidance document to resolve an ambiguity in the law. The Fourth Circuit stated: [W]e conclude that the Department's interpretation of its own regulation, , as it relates to restroom access by transgender individuals, is entitled to Auer deference and is to be accorded controlling weight in this case. We reverse the district court's contrary conclusion and its resultant dismissal of G.G.'s Title IX claim. See G. G. v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709, , 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7026, *
12 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 12 of 110 Subsequently, the guidance document was withdrawn and the basis for the Fourth Circuit s decision was nullified. For that reason, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit for panel reconsideration. But in Mr. Young s case, there was no ambiguity, nor did Mr. Young s Panel rely on any guidance document. The law is clear on who is entitled to an open carry license in Hawaii: security guards, i.e. persons protecting life and property. The Attorney General s belated opinion is just a new and convenient litigation position. Defendants attempt to interpret state law in a manner inconsistent with the express wording of the statute and their prior representations to this Court and the County s implementation of the statute should be ignored. Even if section were vague, G.G. v. Gloucester does not support remand to the trial court. In G.G. v. Gloucester, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit to give the panel an opportunity to reconsider the case in light of the new guidelines. At best, G.G. v. Gloucester supports panel rehearing which Defendants conspicuously have not requested. Conclusion Defendants Petition is a concession that Hawaii law cannot be justified. Rather than ask for rehearing en banc based upon Hawaii s actual implementation of its laws, Defendants have gone to great lengths to create a fantasy where all three judges on Mr. Young s Panel misread Hawaii law. There is absolutely no reason for 8
13 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 13 of 110 this Court rehear Mr. Young s appeal based on a post-hoc fiction. Defendants Petition should be denied. Respectfully submitted, this the 21st day of November, s/ Alan Beck ALAN BECK (HI Bar No. 9145) Attorney at Law 2692 Harcourt Drive San Diego, California Telephone: (619) alan.alexander.beck@gmail.com s/ Stephen D. Stamboulieh STEPHEN D. STAMBOULIEH Stamboulieh Law, PLLC P.O. Box 4008 Madison, MS Telephone: (601) stephen@sdslaw.us 9
14 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 14 of 110 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitations of Fed. R. App. P. 5(c)(1) and 32(c)(2) because, excluding the parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 5(c) and 32(f), it contains 2,104 words. 2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 365 in 14-point Times New Roman. /s/ Alan Alexander Beck Alan Alexander Beck 10
15 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 15 of 110 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 21st, 2018, I filed the foregoing Sur-Reply in Opposition of Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. /s/ Alan Alexander Beck Alan Alexander Beck 11
16 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 16 of 110 YoungAdd-127
17 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 17 of 110 YoungAdd-128
18 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 18 of 110 YoungAdd-129
19 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 19 of 110 YoungAdd-130
20 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 20 of 110 YoungAdd-131
21 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 21 of 110 YoungAdd-132
22 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 22 of 110 YoungAdd-133
23 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 23 of 110 YoungAdd-134
24 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 24 of 110 YoungAdd-135
25 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 25 of 110 YoungAdd-136
26 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 26 of 110 YoungAdd-137
27 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 27 of 110 YoungAdd-138
28 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 28 of 110 YoungAdd-139
29 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 29 of 110 YoungAdd-140
30 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 30 of 110 YoungAdd-141
31 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 31 of 110 YoungAdd-142
32 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 32 of 110 YoungAdd-143
33 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 33 of 110 YoungAdd-144
34 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 34 of 110 YoungAdd-145
35 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 35 of 110 YoungAdd-146
36 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 36 of 110 YoungAdd-147
37 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 37 of 110 YoungAdd-148
38 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 38 of 110 YoungAdd-149
39 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 39 of 110 YoungAdd-150
40 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 40 of 110 YoungAdd-151
41 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 41 of 110 YoungAdd-152
42 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 42 of 110 YoungAdd-153
43 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 43 of 110 YoungAdd-154
44 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 44 of 110 YoungAdd-155
45 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 45 of 110 YoungAdd-156
46 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 46 of 110 YoungAdd-157
47 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 47 of 110 YoungAdd-158
48 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 48 of 110 YoungAdd-159
49 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 49 of 110 YoungAdd-160
50 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 50 of 110 YoungAdd-161
51 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 51 of 110 YoungAdd-162
52 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 52 of 110 YoungAdd-163
53 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 53 of 110 YoungAdd-164
54 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 54 of 110 YoungAdd-165
55 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 55 of 110 YoungAdd-166
56 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 56 of 110 YoungAdd-167
57 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 57 of 110 YoungAdd-168
58 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 58 of 110 YoungAdd-169
59 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 59 of 110 YoungAdd-170
60 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 60 of 110 YoungAdd-171
61 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 61 of 110 YoungAdd-172
62 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 62 of 110 YoungAdd-173
63 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 63 of 110 YoungAdd-174
64 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 64 of 110 YoungAdd-175
65 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 65 of 110 YoungAdd-176
66 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 66 of 110 YoungAdd-177
67 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 67 of 110 YoungAdd-178
68 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 68 of 110 YoungAdd-179
69 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 69 of 110 YoungAdd-180
70 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 70 of 110 YoungAdd-181
71 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 71 of 110 YoungAdd-182
72 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 72 of 110 YoungAdd-183
73 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 73 of 110 YoungAdd-184
74 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 74 of 110 YoungAdd-185
75 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 75 of 110 YoungAdd-186
76 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 76 of 110 YoungAdd-187
77 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 77 of 110 YoungAdd-188
78 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 78 of 110 YoungAdd-189
79 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 79 of 110 YoungAdd-190
80 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 80 of 110 YoungAdd-191
81 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 81 of 110 YoungAdd-192
82 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 82 of 110 YoungAdd-193
83 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 83 of 110 YoungAdd-194
84 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 84 of 110 YoungAdd-195
85 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 85 of 110 YoungAdd-196
86 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 86 of 110 YoungAdd-197
87 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 87 of 110 YoungAdd-198
88 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 88 of 110 YoungAdd-199
89 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 89 of 110 YoungAdd-200
90 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 90 of 110 YoungAdd-201
91 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 91 of 110 YoungAdd-202
92 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 92 of 110 YoungAdd-203
93 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 93 of 110 YoungAdd-204
94 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 94 of 110 YoungAdd-205
95 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 95 of 110 YoungAdd-206
96 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 96 of 110 YoungAdd-207
97 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 97 of 110 YoungAdd-208
98 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 98 of 110 YoungAdd-209
99 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 99 of 110 YoungAdd-210
100 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 100 of 110 YoungAdd-211
101 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 101 of 110 YoungAdd-212
102 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 102 of 110 YoungAdd-213
103 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 103 of 110 YoungAdd-214
104 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 104 of 110 YoungAdd-215
105 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 105 of 110 YoungAdd-216
106 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 106 of 110 YoungAdd-217
107 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 107 of 110 YoungAdd-218
108 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 108 of 110 YoungAdd-219
109 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 109 of 110 YoungAdd-220
110 Case: , 11/21/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 193, Page 110 of 110 YoungAdd-221
Case 4:16-cv SMR-CFB Document 27 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 4:16-cv-00403-SMR-CFB Document 27 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION Fort Des Moines Church of Christ, Plaintiff, v. Angela
Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 10/06/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-00849 Document 1 Filed 10/06/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION U.S. Pastor Council, Plaintiff, v. City of Austin; Steve Adler, in
USA v. Glenn Flemming
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-22-2013 USA v. Glenn Flemming Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 12-1118 Follow this and additional
Qualified Immunity Applied to Prosecutors and Police Officers Who Failed to Disclose Inadmissible Evidence About Alternative Murder Suspects
Civil Rights Update David A. Perkins and Melissa N. Schoenbein Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C., Peoria Qualified Immunity Applied to Prosecutors and Police Officers Who Failed to Disclose Inadmissible
No SPARTANBURG COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SEVEN, a South Carolina body politic and corporate
No. 11-1448 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ROBERT MOSS, individually and as general guardian of his minor child; ELLEN TILLETT, individually and as general guardian of her
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG, JUDGE
1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG, JUDGE 4 -------------------------------) ) 5 Espanola Jackson, et al., ) ) 6 Plaintiffs, ) ) 7
Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Weber: Big Mountain Jesus and the Constitution
Montana Law Review Online Volume 76 Article 12 7-14-2018 Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Weber: Big Mountain Jesus and the Constitution Constance Van Kley Alexander Blewett III School of Law Follow
Case 6:15-cv JA-DCI Document 97 Filed 04/18/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID 4760
Case 6:15-cv-01098-JA-DCI Document 97 Filed 04/18/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID 4760 DAVID WILLIAMSON, et al.,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION Plaintiffs,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 98-CF-273. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (F )
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
Case: Document: 122 Page: 1 11/22/ CV IN THE. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Case: 13-1668 Document: 122 Page: 1 11/22/2013 1100000 18 13-1668-CV IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT American Atheists, Inc., Dennis Horvitz, Kenneth Bronstein, Jane Everhart
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed February 15, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D11-1526 Lower Tribunal
Case 1:12-cv RJS Document 8 Filed 01/29/13 Page 1 of 8
Case 112-cv-08170-RJS Document 8 Filed 01/29/13 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------- X U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,
United States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 09-3082 LORD OSUNFARIAN XODUS, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, WACKENHUT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: FEBRUARY 4, 2011; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-002226-MR JOANNE SMITH APPELLANT APPEAL FROM HART CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE GEOFFREY P. MORRIS,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RONNIE AND DIANNE ROBERTSON APPELLANT VS. CAUSE NO CA BRIEF OF APPELLANT
E-Filed Document Oct 7 2014 13:06:15 2014-CA-00332 Pages: 10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RONNIE AND DIANNE ROBERTSON APPELLANT VS. CAUSE NO. 2014-CA-00332 JEAN MESSER CATALONATTO AND
MEMORANDUM. Teacher/Administrator Rights & Responsibilities
MEMORANDUM These issue summaries provide an overview of the law as of the date they were written and are for educational purposes only. These summaries may become outdated and may not represent the current
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
In The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit
Appeal: 15-1591 Doc: 50 Filed: 10/14/2015 Pg: 1 of 23 No. 15-1591 In The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit NANCY LUND; LIESA MONTAG-SIEGAL; ROBERT VOELKER, Plaintiff - Appellee, v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 3:16-cv-1267 (SRU) : DEPARTMENT OF : CORRECTION, et al., : Defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JA-QURE AL-BUKHARI, : also known as JEROME RIDDICK, : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 3:16-cv-1267 (SRU) : DEPARTMENT OF : CORRECTION, et al., : Defendants.
[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
![[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT](/thumbs/89/101170453.jpg "[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT")
USCA Case #17-7171 Document #1713118 Filed: 01/16/2018 Page 1 of 20 [ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] No. 17-7171 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ARCHDIOCESE OF WASHINGTON,
Case: /16/2009 Page: 1 of 23 DktEntry: NO FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 06-17328 06/16/2009 Page: 1 of 23 DktEntry: 6958571 NO. 06-17328 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CATHOLIC LEAGUE FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS; RICHARD SONNENSHEIN, DR.; VALERIE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 17-AA-13
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-AA-13 2461 CORPORATION T/A MADAM S ORGAN, PETITIONER, MAY 1, 2018 V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD, RESPONDENT. Petition for Review
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO SAM DOE 1, SAM DOE 2, (A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND,) AND SAM DOE 3, C/O ACLU OF OHIO 4506 CHESTER AVENUE CLEVELAND, OHIO
No / In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
JULEA WARD, v. No. 10-2100/10-2145 In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, ROY WILBANKS, ET. AL., Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Appeal from
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT CRITTENDEN COUNTY APPELLEES SECOND MOTION AND BRIEF FOR RECONSIDERATION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT CRITTENDEN COUNTY PAM HICKS and JOHN MARK BYERS APPELLANTS v. CV-2012-290-6 THE CITY OF WEST MEMPHIS, ARKANSAS, and SCOTT ELLINGTON, in his Official Capacities as Prosecuting Attorney
May 15, Via U.S. mail and
LEGAL DEPARTMENT May 15, 2012 Via U.S. mail and email NATIONAL OFFICE 125 BROAD STREET, 18TH FL. NEW YORK, NY 10004-2400 T/212.549.2500 F/212.549.2651 WWW.ACLU.ORG OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS SUSAN N. HERMAN
No. 48,126-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *
Judgment rendered June 26, 2013 Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La.-CCP. No. 48,126-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA JOHNNY LLOYD SMITH,
Case 8:13-cv JDW-TBM Document 198 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3859
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 198 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3859 MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOS GARCIA, and LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ, UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
No JESUS ALCAZAR, and CESAR ROSAS, THE CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE; HORATIO YANEZ,
No. 09-35003 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESUS ALCAZAR, and Plaintiff, CESAR ROSAS, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, THE CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE; HORATIO
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELMBROOK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. JOHN DOE 3, A MINOR BY DOE 3 S NEXT BEST FRIEND DOE 2, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
1 of 1 DOCUMENT. Docket No cv UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT U.S. App. LEXIS 24515
Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT THIRD CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST, OF NEW YORK CITY, Plaintiff-Appellee, - v. - THE CITY OF NEW YORK and PATRICIA J. LANCASTER, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA v. NANCY LUND, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17 565. Decided
Case: 1:10-cv Document #: Filed: 05/11/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:2260
Case: 1:10-cv-01168 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/11/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:2260 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION NATHSON E. FIELDS, Plaintiff,
In Brief: Supreme Court Revisits Legislative Prayer in Town of Greece v. Galloway
NOV. 4, 2013 In Brief: Supreme Court Revisits Legislative Prayer in Town of Greece v. Galloway FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Lugo, Director, Religion & Public Life Project Alan Cooperman, Deputy
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document May 1 2018 16:12:56 2017-KA-01170-COA Pages: 10 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RODNEY WAYNE SMITH APPELLANT VS. NO. 2017-KA-01170 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING CHAPTER 93 ( CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND CHECKS ) OF THE MANALAPAN TOWNSHIP CODE Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING CHAPTER 93 ( CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND CHECKS ) OF THE MANALAPAN TOWNSHIP CODE Ordinance No. 2008-02 Adopted February 27, 2008 WHEREAS, the Township of Manalapan
Praying for Clarity: Lund, Bormuth, and the Split Over Legislator-Led Prayer
Boston College Law Review Volume 59 Issue 9 Electronic Supplement Article 6 3-19-2018 Praying for Clarity: Lund, Bormuth, and the Split Over Legislator-Led Prayer John Gavin Boston College Law School,
ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2011
Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2010-473 JULY TERM, 2011 In re Grievance of Lawrence Rosenberger
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA No.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. NANCY LUND, LIESA MONTAG-SIEGEL, ) and ROBERT VOELKER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR ) DECLARATORY AND v. )
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 04/17/2009 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
United States Court of Appeals
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued October 3, 2017 Decided November
February 3, Lori Simon Executive Director of Academics. RE: Unconstitutional Fieldtrip to Calvary Lutheran Church
February 3, 2014 VIA EMAIL Kim Hiel Principal School of Engineering and Arts Golden Valley, MN kim_hiel@rdale.org Lori Simon Executive Director of Academics Robbinsdale Area Schools New Hope, MN lori_simon@rdale.org
No. 104,839 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, CASSIDY LEE SMITH, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 104,839 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CASSIDY LEE SMITH, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Motions to suppress are intended to exclude evidence obtained
Powell v. Portland School District. Chronology
Powell v. Portland School District Chronology October 15, 1996 During school hours, a Boy Scout troop leader is allowed to speak to Harvey Scott Elementary school students, encouraging them to join the
Case: Document: Page: 1 04/03/ August Term, (Argued: November 19, 2012 Decided: April 3, 2014)
Case: Document: 192-1 Page: 1 04/03/2014 1193445 37 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 August Term, 2012 5 6 (Argued: November 19, 2012 Decided: April 3, 2014) 7 Docket No. -cv
STATE OF OHIO ERIC SMITH
[Cite as State v. Smith, 2010-Ohio-4006.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93593 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ERIC SMITH DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Affirmed by published opinion. Associate Justice O Connor wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Shedd joined.
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1944 HASHMEL C. TURNER, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA; THOMAS J. TOMZAK, in
CITY OF UMATILLA AGENDA ITEM STAFF REPORT
CITY OF UMATILLA AGENDA ITEM STAFF REPORT DATE: October 30, 2014 MEETING DATE: November 4, 2014 SUBJECT: Resolution 2014 43 ISSUE: Meeting Invocation Policy BACKGROUND SUMMARY: At the October 21 st meeting
RESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION NO. 2013- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A POLICY REGARDING OPENING INVOCATIONS BEFORE MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS WHEREAS, the City Council of League City, Texas
IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #17-5278 Document #1732024 Filed: 05/21/2018 Page 1 of 33 No. 17-5278 IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT DAN BARKER, v. PATRICK CONROY, CHAPLAIN, ET AL,
STATEMENT OF BISHOP EMERITUS DONALD TRAUTMAN As he has done his entire career, Bishop Trautman sends his prayerful support to all victims of clergy
STATEMENT OF BISHOP EMERITUS DONALD TRAUTMAN As he has done his entire career, Bishop Trautman sends his prayerful support to all victims of clergy sexual abuse. Bishop Trautman shares the Grand Jury s
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellant, Appeal No v.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ERNEST GIBSON, Minor, by his Guardian ad litem, SUSAN M. GRAMLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, Appeal No. 10-3814 v. AMERICAN CYANAMID, CO., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Respondent. PETITIONERS Vickers, UCE, Ready
SUPREME COURT DAVID VICKERS as PRESIDENT OF UPSTATE CITIZENS FOR EQUALITY, INC.; DOUG READY Petitioners, COUNTY OF ONEIDA STATE OF NEW YORK NOTICE OF PETITION Pursuant to Article 78 of NY CPLR -vs- Index
FILED AUG Q APPELLANT RODERICK G. FORIEST NO KA-2025 APPELLEE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TIlE STATE OF MlS~gp" RODERICK G. FORIEST VS. FILED AUG Q 72008 OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COUR{ COURT OF APPEALS APPELLANT NO. 2007-KA-2025 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
2:13-cv RMG Date Filed 08/15/17 Entry Number 83-1 Page 1 of 12
2:13-cv-00587-RMG Date Filed 08/15/17 Entry Number 83-1 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION The Right Reverend Charles G. vonrosenberg
2:18-cv DCN Date Filed 11/20/18 Entry Number 24 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
2:18-cv-02365-DCN Date Filed 11/20/18 Entry Number 24 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION REDEEMER FELLOWSHIP OF ) EDISTO ISLAND, ) ) ) Plaintiff,
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor & Town Council From: Jamie Anderson, Town Clerk Date: January 16, 2013 For Council Meeting: January 22, 2013 Subject: Town Invocation Policy Prior Council
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 06 CR 1487
[Cite as State v. Moore, 2008-Ohio-2577.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2007 CA 40 v. : T.C. NO. 06 CR 1487 MICHAEL MOORE : (Criminal
6:13-cv GRA Date Filed 09/11/13 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 25. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Greenville Division
6:13-cv-02471-GRA Date Filed 09/11/13 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Greenville Division American Humanist Association, CA No. John Doe and Jane Doe,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 530 U. S. (2000) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TANGIPAHOA PARISH BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. HERB FREILER ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION AT THE CROSS FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH INC ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. ) CITY OF MONROE, NORTH CAROLINA,
PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC00-2579 VIRGINIA CARNESI, PETITIONER, VS. FERRY PASS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, ET AL. RESPONDENTS. AMICUS BRIEF OF CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ON DISCRETIONARY
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION E. Kwan Choi, individually and on behalf of Urantia Foundation, Urantia Corporation, Urantia Brotherhood Association,
SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA RECORD No. 110754 TRAVIS BURNS, JAMES NEWSOME and CHRISTINE NEWSOME, v. Appellants/Cross-Appellees, GREGORY JOSEPH GAGNON, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. =========================================================
Case: Document: 20 Filed: 04/09/2014 Pages: 18. No FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., ANNIE LAURIE GAYLOR, and DAN BARKER,
No. 14 1152 FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., ANNIE LAURIE GAYLOR, and DAN BARKER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JACOB J. LEW, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, and JOHN A. KOSKINEN,
RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS MATERIALS & PROSELYTIZING BY OUTSIDE GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS Individuals, including parents, and groups who have no formal relationship to a school
[Cite as State v. Smith, 2009-Ohio-5692.] Court of Appeals of Ohio. vs. DONNELL SMITH JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED
![[Cite as State v. Smith, 2009-Ohio-5692.] Court of Appeals of Ohio. vs. DONNELL SMITH JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED](/thumbs/81/84706133.jpg "[Cite as State v. Smith, 2009-Ohio-5692.] Court of Appeals of Ohio. vs. DONNELL SMITH JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED")
[Cite as State v. Smith, 2009-Ohio-5692.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92320 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DONNELL SMITH DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
In The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-354 In The Supreme Court of the United States BRONX HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH, ET AL., v. Petitioners, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
STATE OF OHIO DONTA SMITH
[Cite as State v. Smith, 2008-Ohio-6954.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90996 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DONTA SMITH DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Case No D.C. No. OHS-15 Chapter 9. In re: CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA, Debtor. Adv. No WELLS FARGO BANK, et al.
0 MARC A. LEVINSON (STATE BAR NO. ) malevinson@orrick.com NORMAN C. HILE (STATE BAR NO. ) nhile@orrick.com PATRICK B. BOCASH (STATE BAR NO. ) pbocash@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 00 Capitol
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-696a IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MARTIN COUNTY AND MARTIN COUNTY BOARD, Petitioners, v. ANNE DHALIWAL, Respondent. On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The
Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-55696, 08/28/2017, ID: 10561751, DktEntry: 12-1, Page 1 of 26 Case No. 17-55696 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED POULTRY CONCERNS, a Maryland nonprofit corporation,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,387 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DAVID SMITH, Appellant, REX PRYOR, Warden, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,387 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS DAVID SMITH, Appellant, v. REX PRYOR, Warden, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Leavenworth District Court;
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT MOUNT ZION MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 11-0961 MOUNT ZION MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH VERSUS AMEAL JONES, SR. ********** APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 240,167
S10A1598. WALLER et al. v. GOLDEN et al. Craig and Jena Golden s neighbors, the Wallers, appeal from a
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: February 28, 2011 MELTON, Justice. S10A1598. WALLER et al. v. GOLDEN et al. 1 Craig and Jena Golden s neighbors, the Wallers, appeal from a Superior Court of Henry
The Pledge of Allegiance: "Under God" - Unconstitutional?
ESSAI Volume 1 Article 16 Spring 2003 The Pledge of Allegiance: "Under God" - Unconstitutional? Susanne K. Frens College of DuPage Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.cod.edu/essai Recommended
SAN FRANCISCO, CA POST OFFICE BOX U.S. COURT OF APPEALS OFFICE OF THE CLERK. PO Box Sac, CA M.
M. Newdow Sac, CA 95823 OFFICE OF THE CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS POST OFFICE BOX 193939 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94119-3939 Michael Newdow, JD Sacramento, CA 95823 Phone: (916) 427-6669; 916-273-3798 e-mail:
INTERNATIONAL CHURCHES OF CHRIST A California Nonprofit Religious Corporation An Affiliation of Churches. Charter Affiliation Agreement
INTERNATIONAL CHURCHES OF CHRIST A California Nonprofit Religious Corporation An Affiliation of Churches Charter Affiliation Agreement I PARTIES This Charter Affiliation Agreement dated June 1, 2003 (the
Brochure of Robin Jeffs Registered Investment Advisor CRD # Ashdown Place Half Moon Bay, CA Telephone (650)
Item 1. Cover Page Brochure of Robin Jeffs Registered Investment Advisor CRD #136030 6 Ashdown Place Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Telephone (650) 712-8591 rjeffs@comcast.net May 27, 2011 This brochure provides
January 6, By copy of this letter, I am transmitting an additional copy of the resolution and schedules to Southampton Township.
January 6, 2009 Mr. Russell K. Hagerty, III Ms. Linda S. Hagerty 3 Blueberry Run Southampton, NJ 08088 Ms. Victoria P. Herman 2120 South Firelane Road Southampton, NJ 08088 Brian D. Wilson, Ag. Res. Specialist
JULY 2004 LAW REVIEW RELIGIOUS MESSAGE EXCLUDED FROM CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS IN PARK. James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D James C.
RELIGIOUS MESSAGE EXCLUDED FROM CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS IN PARK James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2004 James C. Kozlowski In the case of Calvary Chapel Church, Inc. v. Broward County, 299 F.Supp.2d 1295 (So.Dist
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION. THOMAS C. and PAMELA McINTOSH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION THOMAS C. and PAMELA McINTOSH PLAINTIFFS v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:06-cv-1080-LTS-RHW STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
Sent via U.S. Mail and Facsimile ( )
April 22, 2011 President Wim Wiewel Portland State University 341 Cramer Hall 1721 SW Broadway Portland, Oregon 97201 Sent via U.S. Mail and Facsimile (503-725-4499) Dear President Wiewel: The Foundation
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 12-2790 Jarek Charvat, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Mutual First
IN COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED NOTICE. August 19, No STAN SMITH, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED August 19, 1997 A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See 808.10 and RULE 809.62, STATS.
90 South Cascade Avenue, Suite 1500, Colorado Springs, Colorado Telephone: Fax:
90 South Cascade Avenue, Suite 1500, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903-1639 Telephone: 719.475.2440 Fax: 719.635.4576 www.shermanhoward.com MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Ministry and Church Organization Clients
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ACER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF ACER:
Warning: This archival document has not been updated, and WE DO NOT KNOW IF IT IS STILL GOOD LAW. We do not warrant the accuracy or currency of the information it contains. We hope you will find it useful
CITY OF CLAWSON REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PLANNING SERVICES
CITY OF CLAWSON REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PLANNING SERVICES SUMMARY: The City of Clawson requests proposals to provide professional planning services. SUBMISSION: Please submit three (3) single-sided original,
Case3:11-cv RS Document60-5 Filed01/06/12 Page1 of 39
Case3:11-cv-01012-RS Document60-5 Filed01/06/12 Page1 of 39 Case3:11-cv-01012-RS Document60-5 Filed01/06/12 Page2 of 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOEL H.
Court of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued May 26, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-10-00680-CR JOSE SORTO JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 412th District Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION ) JOHN DOE, ) Civil Action ) Plaintiff, ) File No. ) v. ) ) Complaint for Declaratory BARROW COUNTY, GEORGIA;
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Docket No. CR ) Plaintiff, ) Chicago, Illinois ) March, 0 v. ) : p.m. ) JOHN DENNIS
COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S MERIT BOARD. Docket # 1850 DECISION
COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S MERIT BOARD Sheriff of Cook County vs. Jacquelyn G. Anderson Cook County Deputy Sheriff Docket # 1850 DECISION THIS MATTER COMING ON to be heard pursuant to notice, the Cook County
April 4, Jim Hood, Mississippi Attorney General 550 High Street, Suite 1200 Jackson, MS (601)
April 4, 2019 Herb Frierson, Mississippi Department of Revenue Commissioner commissioner@dor.ms.gov cc: Dianne Perry, Motor Vehicle Licensing Director 500 Clinton Center Drive Clinton, MS 39056 (601) 923-7700
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Smith, 2008-Ohio-2561.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. :
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Case No
Case: 16-2060 Document: 36 Filed: 01/18/2017 Page: 1 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Case No. 16-2060 LIVINGSTON CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
Case 2:11-cv Document 3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-00559 Document 3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION OPEN GATE WESTERN HERITAGE ) Case No. CHURCH, a Louisiana
October 11, 2012 OPINION
JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL ATIORNEY GENERAL ~tate of 2Uouisiana DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. BOX 94005 BATON ROUGE 70804~9005 October 11, 2012 90 B 4 - PUBLIC MEETINGS - State & ~ocal Governing Bodies Mayor
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBER 4, 2008 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBER 4, 2008 Session STEPHANIE CAPPS d/b/a STEPHANIE S CABARET and SMITH INVESTMENT GROUP, L.P. v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2014 v No. 315267 Grand Traverse Circuit Court STEVEN RICHARD, LC No. 13-011510-FH Defendant-Appellant.