US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Name:WENDT V HOST INTERNATIONAL GEORGE WENDT, an individual; JOHN RATZENBERGER, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 96-55243 HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, D.C. No. Defendant-Appellee, CV-93-00142-R and ORDER PARAMOUNT PICTURES, CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Intervenor. Filed December 28, 1999 Before: Betty B. Fletcher and Stephen S. Trott, Circuit Judges, and Bruce S. Jenkins,1 District Judge. Order; Dissent by Judge Kozinski _________________________________________________________________ ORDER The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Trott voted to reject the petition for rehearing en banc and Judges B. Fletcher and Jenkins so recommend. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en _________________________________________________________________ 1 Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. 14901 banc. An active Judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing is denied and the petition for rehearing en banc is rejected. _________________________________________________________________ KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, with whom Judges KLEINFELD and TASHIMA join, dissenting from the order rejecting the suggestion for rehearing en banc: Robots again. In White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir. 1992), we held that the right of pub- licity extends not just to the name, likeness, voice and signa- ture of a famous person, but to anything at all that evokes that
II. Trial Court Ruling. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim went to trial, but the court excluded evidence regarding the alleged sexual harassment. The court refused to grant the plaintiff a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling.
(7) Right to appellate review: The Supreme Court did not rule regarding appeal since their ruling was this case was to be remanded back to the lower courts.
...rts. The Supreme court often get requests to revisit the case, however the supreme regularly declines the offer.
This confirms your assignment as the law clerk with primary responsibility for the above-entitled case. At the moment, a hearing date is not scheduled. However, once the hearing date is scheduled you may be required to prepare a bench memo. I will inform you as soon as the date for oral argument is scheduled.
The Procunier case is whether the California Department of Corrections’ restriction on media-inmate interviews is constitutional or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the California Department of Corrections ban was constitutional and did not violate the inmates’ rights of free speech. Furthermore, the regulation did not violate the media’s right to access information within a correctional Justice Douglas joined by Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall stated that the regulation violates the prisoners’ and the press’ First Amendment rights. However, Justice Stewart, Justice Burger, Justice Powell, Justice White, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Rehnquist stated in their dissent prohibiting face-to-face interviews was not unconstitutional and that restricting inmate visitation allowed inmates to communicate with people who could aid in their rehabilitation, but can be restricted when the security of the institution is at risk, referencing Chief Justice Warren in Zemel v. Rusk (Pell v. Procunier, n.d.). The court also stated that the media’s amendment rights were not violated.
letter; the court refused, by a vote of 92 to 17, and was dismissed. The
The appeal was filed based on the fact that Smith’s presentence investigation report(PSIR) revealed that he had an extensive juvenile record which included a history of at least twelve offenses. Smith argued that he was entitled to resentencing under MCR 5.913, rewritten as MCR 5.925(E). The information in the PSIR was supposed to be automatically expunged pursuant to former MCR 5.913(People v. Smith, 2016). The Court of Appeals considered two panels of discussion before deciding in favor of the
1. The court stated that they did have power to hear this case: "Since the court has consistently exercised the power to construe and delineate claims arising under express powers, it must follow that the Court has authority to interpret claims with respect to powers alleged to derive from enumerated powers."
The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. (2014, May 3). MGM Studios v. Grokster. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_480
In 1787 Article three of the constitution created the Supreme Court, but not until 1789 was it configured. The way it was originally set up was with one Chief Justice and five associate judges, with all six members being appointed for life. This court serves as the “supreme law of the land”, it has the power to determine if state or federal laws are in conflict with how the Court interprets the constitution.
The process of the judging on this criteria goes like this: First, a business or organization that loses an appeal in the Us court system, they are allowed to file a petition, called a “cert petition” (Savage 981). These petitions explain in thirty pages or less the process, views, and decision of the case. These are then given to the Law Clerks, who create a “cert memo”. This is created when the Clerk rea...
During the late 1800’s to the mid 1900’s, the United States was tainted by the stain of the slavery era, especially in the southern states. There was a great prejudice against blacks and the white majority was able to prevent them from practicing their basic rights, especially the right to vote and the right to get an education. When people started to question why there should be this segregation within society, they brought the issues to the United States Supreme Court. These conflicts resulted in the Supreme Court cases, Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education, two of the most influential court cases in United States history.
Warren Earl Burger was born September 17th, 1907 in St. Paul, Minnesota. He was of Swiss and German ancestry and served as the 15th Chief Justice to the United States Supreme Court. After graduating from St. Paul College of Law in 1931, the lifelong republican held many various positions in the legal system while working his way to the top. Burger focused mainly in the areas of corporate law, real estate and probate law, while at the same time becoming involved in politics. Furthermore, he was involved in many successful campaigns which brought attention to himself by prominent republicans. His appointment to the U.S Court of Appeals quickly built his background as a law and order judge. Serving in the circuit courts for a mere thirteen years led to his appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1969 by President Richard M. Nixon. Once appointed Chief Justice, Burger presided over numerous cases, Burger’s goals as Chief Justice was to modernize and streamline the courts to make them more accessible and functional, along with originating the idea of employing professional court administrators, implementing continuing education for judges, and improving coordination between federal and state courts, in addition to being noted for his outspoken criticism of ill-prepared litigators who used the jobs as a way of on-the-job training (Facts, 1996). While serving in the Supreme Court, Justice Burger was involved in many important cases.
Canadian intergovernmental relations are complicated due to many factors including the division of powers between the federal and provincial government. It is widely known that the Constitution Act, 1867 laid out the powers and jurisdiction of the federal and provincial government. In order for the Constitution to be upheld and followed, a national court was needed. Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie and parliament enacted the Supreme Court Act which created a final Canadian Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada which was composed of one Chief Justice and five puisne Justices (Iacobucci, 28). However, the number of Judges in the Supreme Court has risen to nine, which includes the Chief Justice. The Justices are chosen from throughout Canada “so that the judges would bring a rich diversity of experience and understanding to the Court (Iacobucci, 32). Functions of the Supreme Court of Canada include interpreting the Constitution including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, judicial review, and determining the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. The Supreme Court of Canada has had a significant role in determining the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments; therefore, has made how the country of Canada the way it is today. The role of the Supreme Court of Canada has changed throughout history, having different effects on the Canadian government. The interpretation of the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments by the Supreme Court has changed substantially through the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, peace, order and good government clause, province inabilities, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
United States of America. U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 1 Apr. 2003. 13 Nov. 2013