Instruct: Given a question, retrieve passages that answer the question.
Query: Who was the judge in the case of Vallejos and Domingo v. Commissioner of Registration?
On 30 September 2011, Justice Johnson Lam of the Court of First Instance of the High Court (CFI) ruled in Vallejos' case that existing legislation restricting FDHs from qualifying for permanent residence contravened the Hong Kong Basic Law. Lam also found that Vallejos and Domingo, but not the three other applicants, had fulfilled the condition of taking Hong Kong as their only permanent home and being ordinarily resident in Hong Kong for seven years. The Court of Appeal of the High Court overturned the CFI's decision on Vallejos' case on 28 March 2012. Vallejos and Domingo then jointly appealed to the Court of Final Appeal (CFA), which heard their case on 26–28 February 2013; the CFA rejected their appeal on 25 March 2013.
"Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit" became a landmark case for "public use" eminent domain matters. Twenty-three years later, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the precedent that it had set in the earlier case. In their 2004 decision, "County of Wayne v. Hathcock" a property owner near Detroit's Metropolitan Airport successfully fought against the development of a new suburban office/industrial park. The case was argued by Michigan eminent domain attorney Alan T. Ackerman. In a later 2005 United States Supreme Court decision, the case of "Kelo v. City of New London" ruled that the use of eminent domain to promote economic development is constitutional, but the opinion in "Kelo" cites the "Hathcock" decision as an example of how states may choose to impose their own restrictions on the taking of property.
The Sun 1,447,959 -7%
The Judicial order ("Ordem Judicial") is the first category of common courts (excluding the Constitutional Court), forming a proper hierarchical structure that has the Supreme Court of Justice ("Supremo Tribunal de Justiça") in Lisbon as its superior body. This order also includes the five intermediate level courts called "Relação" (Guimarães, Oporto, Coimbra, Lisbon and Évora) and the judicial courts of first instance. The judicial courts of first instance can be courts of generic competence or courts of specific competence.
On June 2, 1986, the defense requested for the case to move back to Puerto Rico, where the political motives would be understood and argued that the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution offered a right to be tried in the district of offense and cited SCOTUS precedents of defendants being tried in their own community. Michael Deutsch brought in sociolinguist William Labov who exposed that due to low quality recording, only native Spanish speakers had been able to understand words in what recorded in the tapes during tests, and that even then there was no agreement about what was being said. Labov argued that this diminished the possibility of a transcript being objective without the jury understanding the words and estimating the voice tones in the tapes. This was used to argue in favor of moving the case back to Puerto Rico and against employing an entirely American jury. Claire declined to move the case, citing that it revolved around a heist in Hartford and that the arguments would not involve Puerto Rican politics. Despite this, the prosecution had emphasized alleged EPB moves in Cuba and Nicaragua, both countries with strong ties to Communism. The defense then moved to argue the suppression of government evidence due to procedural errors in its collection that included being sealed months after dictated by procedure. Concern grew over the prolonged time of reclusion that the accused were spending in jail on preventive detention. On October 21, 1986, the US Court of Appeals for the Second District argued that such a period of pre-trial detention was unconstitutional. By December, Claire had begun to set bonds for the accused that were held for 15 months under preventive detention.
The case of "United States v. Bundy" played out over many years in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. It involved court orders, injunctions, and notices. Bundy argued "pro se" (without a lawyer) that the land belongs to the state. The Bureau of Land Management was represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office for Nevada and the United States Department of Justice. District Judge Larry R. Hicks ruled that the land on which Bundy was grazing his cattle was indeed owned by the federal government, that Bundy had not been paying to use it as he should have been, that Bundy was trespassing, and that the government had the right to enforce the injunctions against trespass. Hicks found that Bundy had repeatedly violated court orders.
On June 24, 1970, the municipality of Sogod filed Civil Case No. R-1706 for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte (now Regional Trial Court), to enjoin the provincial board and provincial governor from taking cognizance of the long pending boundary dispute between the two municipalities and to enjoin the municipality of Bontoc from exercising territorial jurisdiction over the barrios of Pangi, Taa, Casao, Santa Cruz, Tuburan and Lawgawan all allegedly belonging to the municipality of Sogod.
On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision regarding the case called "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas", in which the plaintiffs charged that the education of black children in separate public schools from their white counterparts was unconstitutional. "Brown v. Board of Education" meant that the University of Alabama had to be desegregated. In the years following, hundreds of African-Americans applied for admission, but with one brief exception, all were denied. The University worked with police to find any disqualifying qualities, or when this failed, intimidated the applicants. But in 1963, three African-Americans —Vivian Malone Jones, Dave McGlathery and James Hood—applied. In early June a federal district judge ordered that they be admitted, and forbade Governor Wallace from interfering.
In an article in Townhall, Thomas Sowell argued that When Chief Justice Earl Warren declared in the landmark 1954 case of "Brown v. Board of Education" that racially separate schools were "inherently unequal," Dunbar High School was a living refutation of that assumption. And it was within walking distance of the Supreme Court."
In 1930, the Oregon Supreme Court appointed Thompson to prosecute George W. Joseph in a disbarment case. This was an extremely high-profile case because Joseph became a candidate for governor just prior to the case going to trail. The trial began on April 15. Joseph won the Republican primary against four other candidates on May 16. On May 27, the Supreme Court announced Joseph's disbarment. Joseph decided to continue his campaign, but died of a heart attack a few weeks later. Thompson's highest profile case was probably the Bowles-Loucks murder case. In 1931, a young millionaire from Portland named Nelson C. Bowles and his secretary Irma Loucks were accused of murdering Bowles' wife, Leone. Thompson led the defense team. The theory he offered the jury was that Leone had committed suicide. The trial became even more sensational when a key prosecution witness was stabbed and beaten at her home during the course of the trial. The witness recovered, but her testimony was not as useful as the prosecution had hoped. In fact, Thompson used her testimony to back up several important defense points. At the close of the trial, the jury took just an hour to acquit both Bowles and Louck.
On July 8, 2008, Judge Tunis recommended permanent disbarment and a $43,675.35 fine for Thompson to the Florida Supreme Court, citing "cumulative misconduct, a repeated pattern of behavior relentlessly forced upon numerous unconnected individuals, a total lack of remorse or even slight acknowledgment of inappropriate conduct, and continued behavior consistent with the previous public reprimand... Over a very extended period of time involving a number of totally unrelated cases and individuals, the Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of conduct to strike out harshly, extensively, repeatedly and willfully to simply try to bring as much difficulty, distraction and anguish to those he considers in opposition to his causes... He does not proceed within the guidelines of appropriate professional behavior, but rather uses other means available to intimidate, harass, or bring public disrepute to those whom he perceives oppose him." The court approved the recommendation and fine on September 25, 2008, and ordered that Thompson be permanently disbarred effective 30 days from the date of the order so Thompson could close out his practice. He later filed for an emergency stay of the Florida Supreme Court's order with the U.S. District Court, which was ultimately denied. In an e-mail to media outlets, Thompson responded to the court's decision by stating, "The timing of this disbarment transparently reveals its motivation: This past Friday Thompson filed a federal civil rights action against The Bar, the Supreme Court, and all seven of its Justices. This rush to disbarment is in retribution for the filing of that federal suit. With enemies this foolish, Thompson needs only the loyal friends he has." He closed the email—in which he included the court ruling—with, "...this should be fun, starting now".
Jack Thompson, the Florida lawyer noted for his activism against video games, rap music, and Howard Stern was permanently disbarred for various charges of misconduct. The action was the result of several grievances claiming that Thompson had made defamatory, false statements and attempted to humiliate, embarrass, harass or intimidate his opponents. The order was made on September 25, 2008, effective October 25. However, Thompson attempted to appeal to the higher courts in order to avoid the penalty actually taking effect. Neither the US District court, nor the US Supreme Court would hear his appeal, rendering the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court final.
The current Chief Justice is Richard Wagner, who took office on December 18, 2017, replacing Beverley McLachlin, the first woman to hold this position. Born in Montreal on April 2, 1957, he had been a puisne Supreme Court justice for at the time of his elevation to chief justice. He previously sat on the Quebec Court of Appeal.
Vallejos and Domingo's appeal came before the CFA on 26 February 2013, in a hearing that would last for three days. Fordham's arguments focused on the constitutionality or lack thereof in the use of a "blanket exclusion" to prevent all people belonging to certain classes of residents from falling within the definition of "ordinarily resident" and thus eventually becoming entitled to apply for right of abode. Pannick discussed the legislature's power to define terms used in the Basic Law; he stated that foreign domestic helpers "don't form part of the permanent population" and thus it was legitimate for lawmakers to create a legislative definition of "ordinarily resident" which excluded them. The hearing concluded on schedule. On 25 March 2013, the CFA issued its judgment that the restrictions on FDH's residence and employment in Hong Kong meant that they did not fall within the definition of "ordinarily resident" for immigration purposes; the judgment did not refer to the 1999 NPCSC interpretation, and thus with no Article 158 issues at hand, the CFA rejected the Government's request for the matter to be referred to the NPCSC for further interpretation.
The Hedgepeth–Williams case was cited in the Supreme Court decision in the "Brown v. Board of Education" case on May 17, 1954. Ten years later, the Honorable Thurgood Marshall and his team of NAACP attorneys applied the Hedgepeth and Williams decision (the only state anti-segregation legal precedent in the Nation) to the successful litigation strategy used in the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court's "Brown v. Board of Education", Topeka KS decision, which overturned the doctrine of "Separate but Equal" across the land.
During the 15th century, the common law courts were challenged by the civil law and equity found in the Chancery and similar courts. These courts and legal methods were much faster than the common law courts, so lawyers and claimants flocked to them. This was perceived as a threat to the common law courts, for good reason; between 1460 and 1540, the business of the common law courts significantly dropped, while the Chancery's cases rose massively in number. In reaction to this, the Court of King's Bench developed its own, faster system, intent on winning cases back, and through procedures such as the Writ of Quominus and Bill of Middlesex acquired a wider jurisdiction. While this succeeded in forming an equilibrium between the old common law courts and the new courts, it was viewed with suspicion by the Common Pleas, who became highly reactionary to the changes the King's Bench attempted to introduce. When the King's Bench attempted to use the Bill of Middlesex to widen its jurisdiction, the Common Pleas became increasingly conservative in its attempts to avoid ceding cases. This was limited by the fact that the three Common Pleas prothonotaries could not agree on how to cut costs, leaving the court both expensive and of limited malleability while the King's Bench became faster, cheaper and more varied in its jurisdiction.
President of the Republic: Martín Alberto Vizcarra Cornejo
The Portuguese judiciary system is not unitary, but it is instead divided in four independent categories or orders of courts: Constitutional, Judicial, Administrative and Auditors. Each order contains their own structure of courts. The Constitutional and Auditors orders include a single court each one, while the other two orders include a plurality of hierarchical organized courts. Until 2003, a fifth order of courts existed, this being the Military Jurisdiction.
At Columbia, Dwight was the creator of the Dwight method of legal instruction, which emphasized memorization of treatises, practice drills, and frequent moot courts. The Dwight method was in competition with the case method developed by Christopher Columbus Langdell, then Dean of Harvard, which emphasized the study of individual cases, and inductive reasoning. As described by Columbia Professor Peter Strauss, "Where Dwight aimed to give a sound knowledge of the law to men of average ability, Harvard's case method aimed to give as much intellectual stimulation as possible to those who would become the profession's elite." Today, the more abstract case method dominates legal education, even at New York Law School. However, the Dwight method, while not described as such, is still used in some law schools. Dwight-like memorization techniques are also widely used to prepare for state bar exams.
The basic type of judicial division of Portugal is the "comarca", corresponding to the territorial area of jurisdiction of a judicial court of first instance.
On October 3, 2006, protest groups, citing environmental concerns, along with six individuals who live along the I-69 corridor, filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that state and federal agencies rigged environmental studies and violated several federal laws in the selection of a new-terrain route for I-69. They further pressed the court for a summary ruling directing the FHWA and INDOT to route I-69 over I-70 and US 41. Judge David Hamilton disagreed, and on December 10, 2007, he issued a 58-page ruling upholding the selected route for I-69 and the Tier 1 ROD. His ruling did, however, leave open the possibility that the FHWA and INDOT could be forced to reconsider some or all of the previously-rejected Tier 1 alternatives if there are new significant findings during the Tier 2 studies that were absent from the Tier 1 EIS. Barring any new major findings in the Tier 2 studies, Judge Hamilton's ruling paved the way for construction to begin on the southernmost segment.
The first applicant in the CFA case, Evangeline Banao Vallejos, is a native of the Philippines, where she was previously a businesswoman. She came to Hong Kong in 1986 as an FDH, while the territory was still a British colony. During her first year in Hong Kong, she switched employers, but afterwards continued to work for the family of Barry Ong for more than two decades. She performed volunteer work and became active in a church. She approached the Immigration Department for verification of eligibility for permanent residence in April 2008. In November that year, the Immigration Department informed her that her application was not successful; she was not considered to be "ordinarily resident" in Hong Kong by reason of Immigration Ordinance Article 2(4)(a)(vi). The following month, she approached the Registration of Persons Office to apply for a Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card, for which she was also rejected. She appealed to the Registration of Persons Tribunal, which in June 2009 ruled against her. At that point, Vallejos applied to the Legal Aid Department for help; local law firm Barnes and Daly, as well as barrister Gladys Li, agreed to assist Vallejos in applying for judicial review to rule on whether the relevant provision of the Immigration Ordinance complied with the Basic Law. The case came to mainstream media attention in December 2010.
The hearing on Vallejos' case began on 22 August 2011, and stretched out until the 24th. David Pannick represented the respondent, the Commissioner of Registration. During the hearing, the courtroom was packed to overflowing with lawyers, journalists, and other members of the public, who took up not just the seats in the public gallery, but also those for defendants and jury members (the latter being unoccupied as the case at hand was not a jury trial but a judicial review). Another hundred people watched the proceedings on a large-screen television in the lobby, while protestors both supporting and opposing Vallejos' case faced off outside the building without incident.
In 2013, after the Court of Final Appeal had finished hearing the case, Rao Geping (饒戈平) of Peking University Law School, who had earlier served as a mainland representative on the Basic Law Committee, stated that it should not be necessary for the Hong Kong government to seek another interpretation of the Basic Law either regarding Vallejos' case or the earlier "Director of Immigration v. Chong Fung Yuen" (which gave Hong Kong permanent residence to Hong Kong-born children of non-Hong Kong resident mainland parents). In Rao's opinion the NPCSC had already clearly explained Article 24 of the Basic Law in its 1999 interpretation in the aftermath of "Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration", and in particular had established that the Hong Kong government had the right to use the Immigration Ordinance to control who gained the right of abode in Hong Kong.
Vallejos and Daniel Domingo appealed their cases to the Court of Final Appeal, and were respectively assigned the case numbers FACV 19 and 20/2012. They would be represented before the CFA by Michael Fordham; David Pannick continued to represent the Government. Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma rejected a further application for joinder by eight-year-old Liang Wing-ki, the Hong Kong-born daughter of mainland parents, whose next friend, mother Li Yinxian, filed suit on her behalf. Philip Dykes, for the applicant, argued that because Vallejos and Domingo's case would touch on issues of interpretation of the Basic Law under Article 158, Liang's interests would also be affected. In rejecting Liang's application, Ma stated: "We feel that the points you seem to argue are adequately covered and will be adequately covered". Liang and other Hong Kong-born children like her were ruled to be entitled to the right of abode in Hong Kong in the 2001 case "Director of Immigration v. Chong Fung Yuen".