Murray's Lessee et al. v. Hoboken Land Improvement Co.

12 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. JOHNSON

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed May 30, 2012

    (McKoy v. North Carolina (1990) 494 U.S. 433, 452 [110 S.Ct. 1227, 108 L.Ed.2d 369] (Kennedy,J., concurring).) Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that the verdict ofeven a six- 48/ The absence of historical authority to support such a practice is an additional reason whythe absence ofjury unanimity violates ofthe Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (See, e.g., Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1855) 59 U.S. 272, 276 [18 How. 272]; Griffin v. United States (1991) 502 U.S. 46, 51-52 [112 S.Ct. 466, 116 L.Ed.2d 371].) 278 person jury in a non-petty criminal case must be unanimousto “preserve the substanceofthe jury trial right and assure the reliability of its verdict.”

  2. PEOPLE v. CLARK (WILLIAM CLINTON)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed June 17, 2005

    The finding of one or more aggravating factors, and the finding that such factors outweigh mitigating factors, are critical factual findings in California’s sentencing scheme, and prerequisites to the ultimate deliberative processin which normative determinations are made. The U.S. Supreme Court has madeclear that such factual determinations must be madeby a jury and 39 See, e.g., Griffin v. United States (1991) 502 U.S. 46, S51 [112 S.Ct. 466, 116 L.Ed.2d 371] [historical practice given great weight in constitutionality determination]; Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co. (1855) 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 276-277 [due process determination informed by historical settled usages]. 659 cannotbe attended with fewer procedural protections than decisions of much less consequence.

  3. Sigma Tankers Inc et al v. O.W. Bunker Panama S.A. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 5 EX PARTE MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order . . Document

    Filed April 9, 2015

    Pursuant to Article III, Congress may not "withdraw from [Article III] judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law, or in equity, or in admiralty." Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. 272 (1856); Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipeline Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982); see also Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 2 (2011) (where bankruptcy court could not enter final judgment on state law claim). Courts in this District have discussed the 10 Case 1:15-cv-02733-UA Document 7 Filed 04/09/15 Page 10 of 14 effect the Stern case has had on the power of bankruptcy courts.

  4. Four Directions et al v. Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States

    RESPONSE

    Filed December 23, 2014

    Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Imp. Co., 59 U.S. 272, 277, 15 L. Ed. 372 (1855). Respondent United States fails to address the legal standards raised and the additional evidence provided to this Court. Specifically, Petitioner’s seek redress of their Fifth Amendment right to Due Process.

  5. Four Directions et al v. Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States

    RESPONSE

    Filed December 23, 2014

    Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Imp. Co., 59 U.S. 272, 277, 15 L. Ed. 372 (1855). Respondent United States fails to address the legal standards raised and the additional evidence provided to this Court. Specifically, Petitioner’s seek redress of their Fifth Amendment right to Due Process.

  6. LightSquared Inc. et al v. Deere & Company et al

    MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 13-1670A, 12-B-12080

    Filed November 15, 2013

    ’” Id. at 2609 (quoting Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. 272 (1856)). In Stern, the Supreme Court held that the bankruptcy court lacked constitutional authority under Article III to enter a final judgment on a state common law claim that was not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim.

  7. Dillworth v. Ginn, III et al

    MOTION

    Filed May 18, 2012

    4/ In Stern, the Supreme Court summarized the importance of Article III courts conducting jury trials as follows: Article III could neither serve its purpose in the system of checks and balances nor preserve the integrity of judicial decision making if the other branches of the Federal Government could confer the Government's “judicial Power” on entities outside Article III. That is why we have long recognized that, in general, Congress may not “withdraw from judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty.” Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. 272, 18 How. 272, 284, 15 L.Ed. 372 (1856). When a suit is made of “the stuff of the traditional actions at common law tried by the courts at Westminster in 1789,” Northern Pipeline, 458 U.S., at 90, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment), and is brought within the bounds of federal jurisdiction, the responsibility for deciding that suit rests with Article III judges in Article III courts.

  8. PEOPLE v. MERRIMAN

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed September 21, 2010

    Kirby (10" Cir) 133 F.3d 1299.0... cccssesesssssssssseessseesees 170 Martin v. Waddell’s Lease (1842) 41 U.S. 367.00... ceeeceeeseneee328 Maynard v. Cartwright (1988) 486 U.S. 356.0...eeseeeeeeee267 McDonough Power Equipment v. Greenwood (1984) 464 U.S. SB.ecccecceseeeesseesseseeesesseecesseseesessaseseeseseeassesessesesaeeseeeaeseeesetease 112 Mills v. Maryland (1988) 486 U.S. 367.0...cceeeeeereeeeeseeeeees285, 289, 308 317 Mongev.California (1998) 524 U.S. 721...ccceeeseeeeeeseees272, 294, 295 297, 324 Montanav. Egelhoff (1996) 518 U.S. 37...eescssccsesseeseeees217 Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land (1855) 59 U.S. 18...............284, 291 Myers v. Ylst (9" Cir 1990) 897 F2d 417......ccccecsssssessseseseseeees285, 295, 308 Oken v. State (Md 2003) 835 A.2d 1105...eeeeseeeeeeseeees282 Park v. California (9"" Cir 2000) 202 F.3d 1149.......cesseeseeeees 173 Parle v. Runnels (9" Cir. 2007) 505 F.3d 922......cccssessssseseseoees216 People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 207.0...ececcessceeeseeeeeees320 Peoplev. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222.

  9. PEOPLE v. JONES (WILLIAM ALFRED)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed September 15, 2005

    State (Ok.Cr.App. 1995) 909 P.2d 806 ................. 269 Carter v. Kentucky (1981) 450 U.S. 288 2.0.0.0... 0. cee 276 Chambers v. Mississippi (1973) 410 U.S. 284 ............ 115, 276, 307 Chapmanv. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 ......... 76-77, 98, 119-120, 272, 292, 308 Charfauros v. Board ofElections (9" Cir. 2001) 249 F.3d 941 ....... 234 City ofSacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287 ............ 106 Coker v. Georgia (1977) 433 U.S. 584 2.2.0.0... 0.0.20 222, 231 College Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (Crowell) (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704 . . 99 Collins v. State (Ark. 1977) 548 S.W.2d 106..................... 223 Commonwealth v. O’Neal (Mass. 1975) 327 N.E.2d 662 ........... 228 Conservatorship ofRoulet (1979) 23 Cal.3d 219 ..............0.. 210 CooperIndustries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2001) 532 U.S. 424 1.0.0.0... eee ae. 201 Crane v. Kentucky (1986) 476 US. 683 2.2.0.0... 0.000. .c eee eee 115 Davis v. Georgia (1976) 429 U.S. 122 2...eeeee 129, 138 XIV Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co. (1855) 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272 ........ 204, 214 Doe v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 538 6.00... .... cece, 116 Duncan vy. Louisiana (1968) 391 U.S. 145 oo.eee 276 Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982) 455 U.S. 104 .............. 228, 277, 306 Enmundy. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782 2.0... eee 222 Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 2.0...eee 75-76 Ex Parte Ochse (1951) 38 Cal.2d 230 .. 0...eee 116 Fetterly v. Paskett (9th Cir. 1991) 997 F.2d 1295 ............. 276, 308 Ford v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 399 «1.02... eee. 23 1-232, 239 Francis v. Franklin (1985) 471 U.S. 307 2.0.cc279 Franklin v. Lynaugh (1988) 487 U.S. 164 20.0.0. eee 303 Furman vy. Georgia (1972) 408 U.S. 238 ........ 222-224, 237, 257, 285 Gardner v. Florida (1977) 430 U.S. 349 ........ 209, 232, 261, 266, 272 Gattis v. State (Del.

  10. PEOPLE v. SOUZA (MATTHEW ARIC)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed January 18, 2005

    The absenceofany historical authority for a sentencer to impose sentence based on aggravating circumstances found with proofless than 51% — even 20%, or 10%, or 1% — is itself ample evidence ofthe unconstitutionality of failing to assign at least a preponderance ofthe evidence 372 burden ofproof. (See, e.g., Griffin v. United States (1991) 502 U.S.46, 51 [historical practice given great weight in constitutionality determination]; Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co.(1855) 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 276-277 [due process determination informed byhistorical settled usages].) Finally, Evidence Code section 520 provides: “The party claiming that a person is guilty of crime or wrongdoing has the burden ofproofon that issue.”