You are here

D.N.J.

Displaying 1 - 10 of 51
Contains
Contains
Format: 2019
Greater than or equal to
Available Online Only

Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee (Dickinson R. Debevoise and John Michael Vazquez, D.N.J. 2:81-cv-3876), Arizona Democratic Party v. Arizona Republican Party (John J. Tuchi, D. Ariz. 2:16-cv-3752), Nevada State Democratic Party v. Nevada Republican Party (Richard F. Boulware II, D. Nev. 2:16-cv-2514), Ohio Democratic Party v. Ohio Republican Party (James S. Gwin, N.D. Ohio 1:16-cv-2645), Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Republican Party of Pennsylvania (Paul S. Diamond, E.D. Pa. 2:16-cv-5664), North Carolina Democratic Party v. North Carolina Republican Party (Catherine C. Eagles, M.D.N.C. 1:16-cv-1288), and Michigan Democratic Party v. Michigan Republican Party (Mark A. Goldsmith, E.D. Mich. 2:16-cv-13924)
In 2004, a voter in Ohio moved to intervene in a 1981 District of New Jersey case, complaining that widespread voter registration challenges in Ohio violated a consent decree between the two major political parties in the New Jersey case. On the day before the election, the district court in New Jersey granted injunctive relief. A panel of the court of appeals, over a dissent, denied the defendants a stay, but the full court ordered en banc review on election day. Because the plaintiff was allowed to vote, the appeal was subsequently declared moot. In 2016, a suit was again filed in the District of New Jersey to enforce and extend the consent decree. Related actions were filed in six other states, plaintiffs were denied immediate relief there, and the actions were dismissed voluntarily after the election. A little more than one year later, the consent decree was terminated.
Subject: Campaign activities. Topics: Registration challenges; intervention; enforcing orders; laches; case assignment.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.

Available Online Only

New Jersey Democratic State Committee v. New Jersey Oath Keepers (Jose L. Linares, D.N.J. 2:16-cv-8230)
Four days before a general election, a party committee filed a federal complaint to enjoin voter intimidation allegedly encouraged by a website that urged “incognito intelligence gathering” on election day. The district court “fail[ed] to see how Defendant’s members could intimidate voters who are not even aware of their presence.”
Topic: Campaign materials.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.

Available Online Only

The Patent Pilot Program (PPP), a ten-year pilot program addressing the assignment of patent cases in certain U.S. district courts, was established on January 4, 2011, by Pub. L. No. 111-349. At the request of the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, the Federal Judicial Center has been studying the PPP since the program's inception. This midpoint report presents key findings from the first five years of the program, gathering data for all patent cases filed on or after the individual PPP start date designated by each of the 13 current pilot courts through January 5, 2016. In that time, just over 12,000 patent cases were filed in the participating pilot districts.

Available Online Only

Caldwell v. United States Office of Special Counsel (Freda L. Wolfson, D.N.J. 1:05-cv-5126)
A deputy sheriff filed a federal complaint seeking relief and clarification of his right to run for sheriff as a Republican nominee after the Democratic incumbent transferred him to a department receiving federal funds so that his candidacy might violate the Hatch Act. The district judge held telephone conferences with the parties one and two days later. At a hearing five days after the complaint was filed, the parties announced a confidential settlement.
Topics: Getting on the ballot; case assignment.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.

Available Online Only

Page v. Bartels (Dickinson R. Debevoise, D.N.J. 2:01-cv-1733)
In an election year for New Jersey, a federal complaint challenged district lines for the state legislature that were adopted on the previous day. On the day that the complaint was filed, the judge signed a proposed order to show cause why the new districts should not be enjoined. At a hearing four days later, the judge determined that there was no likelihood that the plaintiffs would prevail on the merits. The court of appeals ruled one week later that the district court should have empaneled a three-judge district court to hear the case. The three-judge court granted summary judgment to the defendants.
Subject: District lines. Topics: Malapportionment; three-judge court.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.

Available Online Only

Assembled here are protective orders used by federal judges in criminal prosecutions in national security cases. Among the most important goals of the protective orders here is the protection of classified information.

Superseded by National Security Prosecutions: Protective Orders (2014).

Available Online Only

Assembled here are jury questionnaires used by federal judges in criminal prosecutions in national security cases. Also included are prepared preliminary remarks for prospective jurors in some cases.

United States v. Shnewer (D.N.J. 1:07-cr-459).

This document is among Selected Orders and Other Case Documents that, in turn, are among the Center's resources on National Security Cases.

United States v. Shnewer (D.N.J. 1:07-cr-459).

This document is among Selected Orders and Other Case Documents that, in turn, are among the Center's resources on National Security Cases.

Pages

Subscribe to D.N.J.