Instruct: Given a question, retrieve relevant documents that can help answer the question.
Query: Who won the case of Vallejos and Domingo v. Commissioner of Registration?
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".
He is also known for his unusual filings to The Florida Bar, including challenging the constitutionality of The Florida Bar itself in 1993. Later the Florida Supreme Court described his filings as "repetitive, frivolous and insulting to the integrity of the court". On March 20, 2008, the Florida Supreme Court imposed sanctions on Thompson, requiring that any of his future filings in the court be signed by a member of The Florida Bar other than himself. In July 2008, Thompson was permanently disbarred by the Supreme Court of Florida for inappropriate conduct, including making false statements to tribunals and disparaging and humiliating litigants.
While still at the firm, Payton was tapped to be the lead counsel for the University of Michigan in defending its law and undergraduate schools' use of race in their admissions processes. For more than six years, Payton handled the two high-profile cases in the trial court and in the court of appeals, and argued "Gratz v. Bollinger" before the Supreme Court. He organized a broad coalition from higher education, the military and top businesses in support of diversity initiatives. In a narrow decision in "Grutter v. Bollinger", the Supreme Court upheld the use of race in college admissions.
The 1991 Act combined elements from two different civil right acts of the past: the Civil Rights Act of 1866, better known by the number assigned to it in the codification of federal laws as Section 1981, and the employment-related provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, generally referred to as Title VII. The two statutes, passed nearly a century apart, approached the issue of employment discrimination very differently: Section 1981 prohibited only discrimination based on race or color, but Title VII also prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, and national origin. Section 1981, which had lain dormant and unenforced for a century after its passage, allowed plaintiffs to seek compensatory damages and trial by jury. Title VII, passed in the 1960s when it was assumed that Southern juries could not render a fair verdict, allowed only trial by the court and provided for only traditional equitable remedies: back pay, reinstatement, and injunctions against future acts of discrimination. By the time the 1991 Act was passed, both allowed for an award of attorneys fees.
People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88 (2004), was a landmark decision by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the U.S. state of New York, in which the court ruled that the state's death penalty statute was unconstitutional because of the statute's direction on how the jury was to be instructed in case of deadlock. New York has since been without the death penalty, as the law has not been amended.
In April 2012, an "ex relatio" complaint was filed in a federal District Court against five mortgage banks. Although Nehemiah was not a party to this complaint, the allegations related to the banks' treatment of Nehemiah-assisted down payments. In July 2014, the court dismissed the claim, citing a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
In 1961, the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property signed the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations. In 1996, this organization was succeeded by the founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization, which launched the 1996 WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty and the 2002 WIPO Copyright Treaty, which enacted greater restrictions on the use of technology to copy works in the nations that ratified it. The Trans-Pacific Partnership includes intellectual Property Provisions relating to copyright.
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.
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.
Guam became the first overseas territory of the United States to recognize and perform same-sex marriages in June 2015. On June 5, 2015, Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood of the United States District Court for the District of Guam ruled that Guam's prohibition on same-sex couples marrying is unconstitutional. She cited the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in "Latta v. Otter" striking down identical bans in Idaho and Nevada. The territory began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples four days later. The Legislature passed the "Guam Marriage Equality Act of 2015" on August 11, 2015, making Guam's marriage laws gender-neutral.
The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states on the basis of population. It was passed by Congress in 1909 in response to the 1895 Supreme Court case of "Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co." The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 3, 1913, and effectively overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in "Pollock".
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.
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 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.
Examples of common law being replaced by statute or codified rule in the United States include criminal law (since 1812, U.S. federal courts and most but not all of the States have held that criminal law must be embodied in statute if the public is to have fair notice), commercial law (the Uniform Commercial Code in the early 1960s) and procedure (the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the 1930s and the Federal Rules of Evidence in the 1970s). But note that in each case, the statute sets the general principles, but the interstitial common law process determines the scope and application of the statute.
Tourism functional constituency legislator Paul Tse raised questions about the Civic Party's links to the case, questions which were echoed by internet users including those on popular local forum Uwants as well as a Facebook group created by Tse to gather videos and articles on the potential negative impact of the judicial review. Vallejos' barrister, Gladys Li, is a founding member of the Civic Party. The Liberal Party took out attack ads stating that "Civic Party core member Gladys Li is helping foreign maids to fight their residence case", echoed the DAB's warnings of massive increases in population and public expenditures, and called on the Civic Party to make a formal public statement of whether or not the party itself supported permanent residence for FDHs. An editorial in "Wen Wei Po" the week after the ruling accused the Civic Party of being "an enemy of the people" for their alleged support of the maids' residence case. Public perceptions that pan-democratic candidates supported Vallejos' case are believed to have contributed to their poor showing in the November 2011 district councils elections.
On March 2, 1917, the Jones–Shafroth Act was signed, collectively making Puerto Ricans United States citizens without rescinding their Puerto Rican citizenship. In 1922, the U.S. Supreme court in the case of "Balzac v. Porto Rico" ruled that the full protection and rights of the U.S constitution do not apply to residents of Puerto Rico until they come to reside in the United States proper. Luis Muñoz Rivera, who participated in the creation of the Jones-Shafroth Act, gave a speech in the U.S. House floor that argued in favor of Puerto Rican citizenship. He declared that "if the earth were to swallow the island, Puerto Ricans would prefer American citizenship to any citizenship in the world. But as long as the island existed, the residents preferred Puerto Rican citizenship." The Jones Act allowed locals to renounce the United States citizenship and remain exclusively Puerto Rican citizens, at the cost of being stripped of the right to vote. Despite these arbitrary limitations, 287 residents completed the process to forfeit the statutory recognition.
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.
In "Ableman v. Booth", 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
In "Ware v. Hylton", 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the United States Supreme Court for the first time applied the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute. Virginia had passed a statute during the Revolutionary War allowing the state to confiscate debt payments by Virginia citizens to British creditors. The Supreme Court found that this Virginia statute was inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris with Britain, which protected the rights of British creditors. Relying on the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court held that the treaty superseded Virginia's statute, and that it was the duty of the courts to declare Virginia's statute "null and void".
In 1994, Puerto Rican activist Juan Mari Brás flew to Venezuela and renounced his US citizenship before a consular agent in the US Embassy in Caracas. Mari Brás, through his renunciation of U.S. citizenship, sought to redefine Section VII as a source of law that recognized a Puerto Rican nationality separate from that of the United States. In December 1995, his denaturalization was confirmed by the US State Department. Among the arguments that ensued over his action was whether he would now be able to vote in elections in Puerto Rico. On November 18, 1997, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico through its ruling in "Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer v. Juan Mari Brás" reaffirmed the Puerto Rican citizenship by ruling that U.S. citizenship was not a requirement to vote in Puerto Rico. According to the court's majority opinion, the Puerto Rican citizenship is recognized several times in the Puerto Rican constitution including section 5 of article III, section 3 of article IV, and section 9 of article V. In a 2006 memorandum, the Secretary of Justice of Puerto Rico concluded, based on the Mari Brás case, that the Puerto Rican citizenship is "separate and different" from the United States citizenship.
Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon of the CFI had been expected to rule on the case on 29 September 2011. However, the Hong Kong Observatory raised tropical cyclone warning signal No. 8 due to the approach of Typhoon Nesat early that morning, meaning that government offices closed for the day. The next morning, the weather had returned to normal, and Lam announced his ruling that the relevant provision of the Immigration Ordinance was inconsistent with the Basic Law. Vallejos herself did not attend court that day, as she was at work.
Vallejos and Domingo v. Commissioner of Registration was a court case against the government of Hong Kong by two foreign domestic helpers (FDHs) seeking permanent residence and the right of abode in Hong Kong. Because of its subject matter it was commonly referred to in the media as the FDHs' right of abode case (外傭居港權案). Evangeline Vallejos and Daniel Domingo were two of five applicants who in various groups filed three right of abode lawsuits in 2010; the ruling in Vallejos' case was expected to be a precedent for the other two.
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.
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.