ELECCIÓN EN LA OBLIGACIÓN ALTERNATIVA: Un proceso sumarísimo en donde el Juez comunica la elección de la obligación alternativa (AUTOR JOSÉ MARÍA PACORI CARI)
ELECCIÓN EN LA OBLIGACIÓN ALTERNATIVA: Un proceso sumarísimo en donde el Juez comunica la elección de la obligación alternativa (AUTOR JOSÉ MARÍA PACORI CARI)
This sample renewed motion for California is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(b) on the grounds that the renewed motion should be granted due to new or different facts, circumstances or law discovered since the date of the order for which reconsideration is being requested. A renewed motion is NOT subject to any statutory time limitation. The sample on which this preview is based is 10 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities, a sample declaration and proof of service by mail. The author is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 235 sample legal documents.
Demanda de Mejor Derecho de Propiedad 2022. Demanda que interpone propietario en virtud de minuta de compraventa del 2006, contra segundo comprador del 2021 que inscribe la compraventa a sabiendas de la existencia de un primer comprador
For $25/hr we organize and summarize all your medical records in chronological order. We have a talented team of medical record reviewers who produce high-quality medical record chronologies. We are reviewing medical records for individual cases such as MVA, Nursing home, personal injury, medical malpractice, and workers comp., as well as mass torts with multiple plaintiffs.
Medical Record Chronologies and Summaries >> https://medicolegalrequestllc.com/medical-chronologies-timeline-summaries
este es un análisis de la obra Litigacion Estratégica en el nuevo proceso penal, un libro muy interesante que todo abogado o estudiante de derecho debe leer.
Special interogatories in California litigationLegalDocsPro
Special interrogatories in Caifornia litigation are the topic of this isssue of the weekly legal newsletter from LegalDocsPro. This is is issue number 2.
Sample motion for consolidation of cases in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion for consolidation of multiple cases in California is filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a) to request consolidation of two or more cases. The motion is used by a party who is requesting that a Court consolidate two or more cases on the grounds that consolidation of the cases is warranted in that all of the cases arise out of the same set of operative facts and contain common issues and further that consolidation of all of the cases will avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and procedures in all of the actions; avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications and avoid many of the same witnesses testifying on common issues in all actions as well as promote judicial economy and convenience. The sample on which this preview is based can be easily modified for use in cases where complete consolidation is requested or where consolidation is requested only for purposes of trial and is 19 pages including brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration, proof of service by mail and proposed order. The author is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 250 sample legal documents for sale.
This sample renewed motion for California is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(b) on the grounds that the renewed motion should be granted due to new or different facts, circumstances or law discovered since the date of the order for which reconsideration is being requested. A renewed motion is NOT subject to any statutory time limitation. The sample on which this preview is based is 10 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities, a sample declaration and proof of service by mail. The author is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 235 sample legal documents.
Demanda de Mejor Derecho de Propiedad 2022. Demanda que interpone propietario en virtud de minuta de compraventa del 2006, contra segundo comprador del 2021 que inscribe la compraventa a sabiendas de la existencia de un primer comprador
For $25/hr we organize and summarize all your medical records in chronological order. We have a talented team of medical record reviewers who produce high-quality medical record chronologies. We are reviewing medical records for individual cases such as MVA, Nursing home, personal injury, medical malpractice, and workers comp., as well as mass torts with multiple plaintiffs.
Medical Record Chronologies and Summaries >> https://medicolegalrequestllc.com/medical-chronologies-timeline-summaries
este es un análisis de la obra Litigacion Estratégica en el nuevo proceso penal, un libro muy interesante que todo abogado o estudiante de derecho debe leer.
Special interogatories in California litigationLegalDocsPro
Special interrogatories in Caifornia litigation are the topic of this isssue of the weekly legal newsletter from LegalDocsPro. This is is issue number 2.
Sample motion for consolidation of cases in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion for consolidation of multiple cases in California is filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a) to request consolidation of two or more cases. The motion is used by a party who is requesting that a Court consolidate two or more cases on the grounds that consolidation of the cases is warranted in that all of the cases arise out of the same set of operative facts and contain common issues and further that consolidation of all of the cases will avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and procedures in all of the actions; avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications and avoid many of the same witnesses testifying on common issues in all actions as well as promote judicial economy and convenience. The sample on which this preview is based can be easily modified for use in cases where complete consolidation is requested or where consolidation is requested only for purposes of trial and is 19 pages including brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration, proof of service by mail and proposed order. The author is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 250 sample legal documents for sale.
Presentation of the positive aspects of developing a group aimed to assess the improving opportunities on our Department by systematically recording a group of indicators.
17Supreme Court Cases – the right to voteJesus Mojica.docxdrennanmicah
1
7
Supreme Court Cases – the right to vote
Jesus Mojica
History 121
Ochoa
November 6, 2018
Introduction
The Shelby county V. Holder, the United States V. Reese and the Ohio voter purge are Supreme Court cases which are concerned with the voting right in the United States. The United States being a federal state has to set out different voting rights in order to ensure that the voting processes are carried out efficiently in the state. These rights also define the voting in the different nations which fall under the United States federation. The three cases are therefore related since they are concerned with voting rights in the US. The Shelby county V. holder, 570 US 2 is concerned with a voting act which was passed back in the year 1965 requiring both the state and the local governments not to pass laws or voting policies that denied the American citizens their rights to vote in accordance to race among other differences among the citizens. The Supreme Court later took the case back in the year 2012 and was decided in the year 2013.
The united states V. Reese, 92 US 214 case on the other hand is a case whereby the us supreme court went ahead and interpreted the 15th amendment of the us constitution which was mainly that the citizens should not be restricted of suffrage due to their race, color as well as the fact that one is a slave. This case therefore was mainly restrictions of voters voting rights due to their various differences from the other citizens. The Ohio voter purge supreme court case lastly is mainly about voter’s suppression. It was presented in the Supreme Court back last year due to voter purging in that removing the voter’s registrations which are termed as outdated. This paper therefore explains in detail these three cases that are highly recognized in the United States Supreme Court.
Shelby County V. Holder
As mentioned before this case is mainly regarding the appeal by the Shelby County on the voting rights act which was passed back in 1965 in the American constitution. This case dwelled on two articles in the American constitution. The first article is the section 5 of the voting rights act which requires certain states or rather counties local governments to obtain the federal clearance before changing the voting practices in their areas. The other article is the section 4(b) of the voting rights act which states the jurisdictions of the clearance process and the basis of the local government’s history on voting discrimination. This information is contained in the coverage formula in this section of the voting rights act. The district and the court of appeal courts in USA upheld the constitutionality of the two sections of the voting acts back in 2006 and 2012. The district court had reauthorized the section 5 and also the continuing of the section 4(b) coverage formula back in 2006 while the court of appeal also agreed that the section 5 was justified and the section 4(b) coverage formula continued to outdo the c.
More case on casting a ballot, redistricting and race arrived at North Carolina's Supreme Court on Monday, as judges started choosing if two protected changes ought to be struck down on the grounds that legislators who put them on the polling form were chosen a debt of gratitude is in order for misshaped region limits.
https://uii.io/emariarr123
Rodriguez 1
Diego Rodriguez
Winston Padgett
Government 2305, Sect. 049
Monday, April 14, 2014
Same Sex Marriage: Constitutional and Cultural Considerations Outline
Same sex marriage - is a highly controversial topic in the United States. It impacts our culture and, in many regards to religious beliefs
I. Why and how the U.S. Supreme Court has issued two important rulings that opened up room in constitutional jurisprudence for consideration of gay rights.
A. Yet the vast majority of other states have adopted statutes or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Do they right to revolt against government tyranny and fight for their rights
B. What states approve of same sex marriage? Which states deny same sex marriage? How has this happen?
II. In this Article, I argue that an individual who marries in her state of domicile and then migrates to a mini-defense of marriage act state has a significant liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause in the ongoing existence of her marriage.
A. Section 1 ARTICLE IV “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
B. Courts generally agreed right applies to individuals
C. Government permitted to limit some rights of marriage by same sex.
D. Questions today center around: What bans our enforced presently on same sex marriage? Should it be mandatory for gays that want marriage neutral principle grounded in core Due Process Clause values: protection of reasonable expectations and of marital and family privacy, respect for established legal and social practices, and rejection of the idea that a state can sever a legal family relationship merely by operation of law?
III. Court cases outcome for gay marriages
A. The article cites a survey on the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the U.S. which found that 50% of the American people are in favor of the amendment banning same-sex marriages while 47% strongly opposed.
B. This survey was conducted by Gallup Poll Ltd. conducted on May 8-11, 2006. Findings also revealed that 66% of the Republicans favor the constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution while 55% of the Democrats opposed the amendment.
C. United States v. Windsor, a narrow majority ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which comprehensively defined "marriage" and "spouse" in federal law to exclude same-sex partners, was unconstitutional.
D. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court let stand a trial-court ruling invalidating California's Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage. Will Fourteenth Amendment still not incorporated to protect gay marriage
IV. There have been and there will continue to be disagreements about the merits of same-sex marriage. But disagree ...
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, School Law, Employment Relationships, Termination, School District Restrictions, Law for Teachers, Due Process, Discrimination of Employment.
In 2005, Dr. Kritsonis was an Invited Visiting Lecturer at the Oxford Round Table at Oriel College in the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. His lecture was entitled the Ways of Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning.
1 American Civil Liberties Union Statement For .docxmercysuttle
1
American Civil Liberties Union
Statement For
“The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election”
Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Submitted by
Laura W. Murphy, Director
Deborah J. Vagins, Senior Legislative Counsel
Demelza Baer, Policy Counsel
ACLU Washington Legislative Office
December 19, 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on behalf of its over half a million
members, countless additional supporters and activists, and fifty-three affiliates nationwide, is
pleased to submit this statement for the record for the “The State of the Right to Vote After the
2012 Election” Hearing, before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The ACLU is a
nationwide, non-partisan organization working daily in courts, Congress, state legislatures, and
communities across the country to defend and preserve the civil rights and liberties that the
Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. The ACLU works
at the federal, state and local levels to lobby, litigate, and conduct public education in order both
expand opportunities and to prevent barriers to the ballot box.
In the wake of significant voter suppression efforts and other election administration
concerns that arose on Election Day, which threatened the electoral participation of millions of
Americans, disproportionately racial and ethnic minority voters, it is particularly crucial and
timely for the Senate Judiciary Committee to consider the state of our most fundamental right as
citizens. We thank the Committee for its attention to these barriers, and we ask that the
Committee consider advancing the federal reforms outlined in this statement in order to ensure
full electoral participation.
2
I. The State of the Right to Vote in 2012
Although state voter suppression efforts are not a new phenomenon, during the past two
state legislative sessions, there was a dramatic proliferation of bills that would restrict access to
the ballot. Regressive measures were introduced in 38 states in 2011
1
and in 22 states in 2012,
2
with 25 new or expanded barriers signed into law since January 2011.
3
These laws cumulatively
represented a significant retrenchment in voting rights, and they had the potential to disfranchise
as many as five million Americans during the 2012 election.
4
However, due to a series of successful legal challenges and advocacy in support of voting
rights, the effect of many of these new laws was blunted in time for the 2012 election. Notably,
voter ID laws were enjoined from going into effect in time for the 2012 election in Pennsylvania,
Texas, Wisconsin, and South Carolina. Other legal challenges resulted in the preservation of
early voting on the three days before Election Da ...
1. Shelby County vs. Holder
● Mr. Harrison and Ms. Smith
● UD 7
● February 2014
2. Facts of the Case
● Shelby County, Alabama, filed suit in district court seeking a judgment
that Section 5 and Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are
unconstitutional and seeking a permanent injunction against their
enforcement
● The District court upheld the constitutionality of the Voting Rights
Act Section 5
● The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld that Congress did not exceed it
powers by re-authorizing Section 5
● The Supreme Court Agreed to hear the case in 2012
4. When
Timeline:
Granted a hearing by the Supreme Court:
Friday, November 9, 2012
Argued in front of the Court:
by Burt W. Rein for Shelby County
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. for DOJ
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Decided :
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
5. Why
● In 2006, without obtaining federal preclearance, the city of Calera in
Shelby County held city council elections after re-drawing its city
council districts.
● The re-districting eliminated the only district that gave African
American voters the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.
● In the next election Councilman Ernest Montgomery, the second
African American in the history of the city to become a councilman,
lost his seat
● The redistricting changes were challenged by the USDOJ under
Section 5 forcing the city of Calera to redo its redistricting plan and
conduct new elections. Montgomery won back his seat
● Section 5 was originally enacted for 5 years but was continually
renewed by Congress.
6. Who: Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Shelby County, Alabama
Population, 2013 estimate 4,833,722
● White alone 2012 (a) 84.7% (SC) 70.0% (AL)
● Black or African American alone 11.5% (SC) 26.5% (AL)
● Two or More Races 2012 6.0% (SC) 4.1% (AL)
● Hispanic or Latino 6.0% (SC) 4.1%(AL)
Household Income
● Median household income, 2008-2012 $69,379 (SC) $43,160 (AL)
● Persons below poverty level, percent definition and source info
Persons below poverty level, percent, 2008-2012 7.7% (SC) 18.1%
(AL)
7. Who: Defendant
Attorney General Eric Holder
Commenting on the enforcement responsibilities of the DOJ
“The constitutionally protected voting rights of all Americans remain fully
intact. And the right to vote, free from discrimination based on race or
language, requires our vigilant protection” (Holder, p.1)
THE ACLU intervened in the case on behalf of the Alabama State
Conference of the NAACP “ Every eligible voter in Alabama regardless of
race has the right to have his or her vote count.” (ACLU p.1)
8. What
Question before the Court: Does the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter
Rights Act under the constraints of Section 4(b) exceed Congress’
authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and violate
the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution?
What does section 4(b) say:
The Attorney General under any statute to enforce the guarantees of the
Fifteenth Amendment in any State or political subdivision the court finds
that a test or device has been used for the purpose or with the effect of
denying or abridging the right of any citizen of the United States to vote
on account of race or color, it shall suspend the use of tests and devices in
such State or political subdivisions as the court shall determine is
appropriate and for such period as it deems necessary.
9. How
In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional in addition to Section 4
that the blatant discrimination against certain voters that Section 5 was
intended to prohibit is no longer evident.
Without such circumstances, Congress cannot constitutionally justify
placing the burden of Section 5 on the states in question
10. Outcomes and Opinions
Court opinions:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 5-4
majority.
● The Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act imposes
burdens that are no longer responsive to the current conditions in the
voting districts in question
● The constraints on specific states made sense in the 1960s and 1970s,
they do not any longer
● They represent an unconstitutional violation of the power to regulate
elections that the Constitution reserves for the states.
11. Dissenting Opinion
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that Congress’ power to enforce the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments includes legislation such as the
Voting Rights Act.
● The evidence Congress gathered sufficiently proved that there was
still a current need to justify the burdens placed on the states in
question
● She also argued that, by holding Section 4 unconstitutional, the
majority’s opinion makes it impossible to effectively enforce Section 5
(Section 5 prohibits eligible districts from enacting changes to their
election laws and procedures without gaining official authorization.)
12. Works Cited
Abilock, D. (2012, March). True-or Not? Educational Leadership, 70-74.
Coiro, J. (2011). Talking about reading as thinking: Modeling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension. Theory
into Practice, 50. doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.558435
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007, Spring). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to
search for and locate information on the internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257.
Harris, A. (2011, October). How effective are print-based comprehension models fro reading and assessing multimodal texts?
Literacy Learning in the Middle Years, 19(3), 19-32.
Heil, D. (2005, December). The Internet and st