text:
H.B. 344 Enrolled
1 INCORPORATION ELECTION AMENDMENTS
4 Chief Sponsor: Jon Cox
5 Senate Sponsor: Kevin T. Van Tassell
9 This bill amends provisions related to an election held to determine the incorporation of
10 a city or town.
13 . authorizes a county to hold a local special election on the proposed incorporation of
14 a city or town;
15 . amends the definitions of "incorporation election" and "incorporation petition"; and
16 . makes technical corrections.
23 10-2-111 , as last amended by Laws of Utah 2012, Chapter 359
24 10-2-127 , as enacted by Laws of Utah 2012, Chapter 359
25 20A-1-203 , as last amended by Laws of Utah 2013, Chapters 320 and 415
26 20A-11-101 , as last amended by Laws of Utah 2013, Chapters 86, 170, 318, and 420
27 20A-11-1203 , as last amended by Laws of Utah 2008, Chapter 225
30 Section 1. Section 10-2-111 is amended to read:
31 10-2-111. Incorporation election.
32 [(1) (a) At the next regular general election date under Section 20A-1-201 more than
33 60 days after the county legislative body's receipt of the certified petition or certified modified
34 petition under Subsection 10-2-110 (1)(b)(i), the county legislative body shall hold an election
35 on the proposed incorporation.]
36 (1) (a) Upon receipt of a certified petition under Subsection 10-2-110 (1)(b)(i) or a
37 certified modified petition under Subsection 10-2-110 (3), the county legislative body shall
38 determine and set an election date for the incorporation election that is:
39 (i) (A) on a general election date under Section 20A-1-201 ; or
40 (B) on a local special election date under Section 20A-1-203 ; and
41 (ii) at least 65 days after the day that the legislative body receives the certified petition.
42 (b) Unless a person is a registered voter who resides, as defined in Section 20A-1-102 ,
43 within the boundaries of the proposed city, the person may not vote on the proposed
44 incorporation.
45 (2) (a) The county clerk shall publish notice of the election:
46 (i) in a newspaper of general circulation within the area proposed to be incorporated at
47 least once a week for three successive weeks; and
48 (ii) in accordance with Section 45-1-101 for three weeks.
49 (b) The notice required by Subsection (2)(a) shall contain:
50 (i) a statement of the contents of the petition;
51 (ii) a description of the area proposed to be incorporated as a city;
52 (iii) a statement of the date and time of the election and the location of polling places;
54 (iv) the feasibility study summary under Subsection 10-2-106 (3)(b) and a statement
55 that a full copy of the study is available for inspection and copying at the office of the county
56 clerk.
57 (c) The last publication of notice required under Subsection (2)(a) shall occur at least
58 one day but no more than seven days before the election.
59 (d) (i) In accordance with Subsection (2)(a)(i), if there is no newspaper of general
60 circulation within the proposed city, the county clerk shall post at least one notice of the
61 election per 1,000 population in conspicuous places within the proposed city that are most
62 likely to give notice of the election to the voters of the proposed city.
63 (ii) The clerk shall post the notices under Subsection (2)(d)(i) at least seven days before
64 the election under Subsection (1).
65 (3) If a majority of those casting votes within the area boundaries of the proposed city
66 vote to incorporate as a city, the area shall incorporate.
68 10-2-127. Incorporation of town -- Election to incorporate -- Ballot form.
69 [(1) (a) At the next regular general election, as defined in Section 20A-1-102 , more
70 than 60 days after the public hearing described in Section 10-2-126 , the county legislative
71 body shall hold an election on the proposed incorporation unless prohibited under the
72 provisions of Section 10-2-126 .]
80 within the boundaries of the proposed town, the person may not vote on the proposed
83 (i) in a newspaper of general circulation, within the area proposed to be incorporated,
84 at least once a week for three successive weeks; and
88 (ii) a description of the area proposed to be incorporated as a town;
91 (iv) the county Internet website address, if applicable, and the address of the county
92 office where the feasibility study is available for review.
96 circulation within the proposed town, the county clerk shall post at least one notice of the
97 election per 100 population in conspicuous places within the proposed town that are most
98 likely to give notice of the election to the voters of the proposed town.
100 the election under Subsection (1)(a).
101 (3) The ballot at the incorporation election shall pose the incorporation question
102 substantially as follows:
103 Shall the area described as (insert a description of the proposed town) be incorporated
104 as the town of (insert the proposed name of the proposed town)?
105 (4) The ballot shall provide a space for the voter to answer yes or no to the question in
106 Subsection (3).
107 (5) If a majority of those casting votes within the area boundaries of the proposed town
108 vote to incorporate as a town, the area shall incorporate.
109 Section 3. Section 20A-1-203 is amended to read:
110 20A-1-203. Calling and purpose of special elections -- Two-thirds vote
111 limitations.
112 (1) Statewide and local special elections may be held for any purpose authorized by
113 law.
114 (2) (a) Statewide special elections shall be conducted using the procedure for regular
115 general elections.
116 (b) Except as otherwise provided in this title, local special elections shall be conducted
117 using the procedures for regular municipal elections.
118 (3) The governor may call a statewide special election by issuing an executive order
119 that designates:
120 (a) the date for the statewide special election; and
121 (b) the purpose for the statewide special election.
122 (4) The Legislature may call a statewide special election by passing a joint or
123 concurrent resolution that designates:
126 (5) (a) The legislative body of a local political subdivision may call a local special
127 election only for:
128 (i) a vote on a bond or debt issue;
129 (ii) a vote on a voted local levy authorized by Section 53A-16-110 or 53A-17a-133 ;
130 (iii) an initiative authorized by Chapter 7, Part 5, Local Initiatives - Procedures;
131 (iv) a referendum authorized by Chapter 7, Part 6, Local Referenda - Procedures;
132 (v) if required or authorized by federal law, a vote to determine whether or not Utah's
133 legal boundaries should be changed;
134 (vi) a vote authorized or required by Title 59, Chapter 12, Sales and Use Tax Act;
135 (vii) a vote to elect members to school district boards for a new school district and a
136 remaining school district, as defined in Section 53A-2-117 , following the creation of a new
137 school district under Section 53A-2-118.1 ;
138 (viii) an election of town officers of a newly incorporated town under Section
139 10-2-128 ;
140 (ix) an election of officers for a new city under Section 10-2-116 ;
141 (x) a vote on a municipality providing cable television services or public
142 telecommunications services under Section 10-18-204 ;
143 (xi) a vote to create a new county under Section 17-3-1 ;
144 (xii) a vote on the creation of a study committee under Sections 17-52-202 and
145 17-52-203.5 ; [or]
146 (xiii) a vote on a special property tax under Section 53A-16-110 [.];
147 (xiv) a vote on the incorporation of a city in accordance with Section 10-2-111; or
148 (xv) a vote on the incorporation of a town in accordance with Section 10-2-127.
149 (b) The legislative body of a local political subdivision may call a local special election
150 by adopting an ordinance or resolution that designates:
151 (i) the date for the local special election as authorized by Section 20A-1-204 ; and
152 (ii) the purpose for the local special election.
153 (c) A local political subdivision may not call a local special election unless the
154 ordinance or resolution calling a local special election under Subsection (5)(b) is adopted by a
155 two-thirds majority of all members of the legislative body, if the local special election is for:
156 (i) a vote on a bond or debt issue as described in Subsection (5)(a)(i);
157 (ii) a vote on a voted leeway or levy program as described in Subsection (5)(a)(ii); or
158 (iii) a vote authorized or required for a sales tax issue as described in Subsection
159 (5)(a)(vi).
160 Section 4. Section 20A-11-101 is amended to read:
161 20A-11-101. Definitions.
162 As used in this chapter:
163 (1) "Address" means the number and street where an individual resides or where a
164 reporting entity has its principal office.
165 (2) "Ballot proposition" includes initiatives, referenda, proposed constitutional
166 amendments, and any other ballot propositions submitted to the voters that are authorized by
167 the Utah Code Annotated 1953.
168 (3) "Candidate" means any person who:
169 (a) files a declaration of candidacy for a public office; or
170 (b) receives contributions, makes expenditures, or gives consent for any other person to
171 receive contributions or make expenditures to bring about the person's nomination or election
172 to a public office.
173 (4) "Chief election officer" means:
174 (a) the lieutenant governor for state office candidates, legislative office candidates,
175 officeholders, political parties, political action committees, corporations, political issues
176 committees, state school board candidates, judges, and labor organizations, as defined in
177 Section 20A-11-1501 ; and
178 (b) the county clerk for local school board candidates.
179 (5) (a) "Contribution" means any of the following when done for political purposes:
180 (i) a gift, subscription, donation, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of
181 value given to the filing entity;
182 (ii) an express, legally enforceable contract, promise, or agreement to make a gift,
183 subscription, donation, unpaid or partially unpaid loan, advance, or deposit of money or
184 anything of value to the filing entity;
185 (iii) any transfer of funds from another reporting entity to the filing entity;
186 (iv) compensation paid by any person or reporting entity other than the filing entity for
187 personal services provided without charge to the filing entity;
188 (v) remuneration from:
189 (A) any organization or its directly affiliated organization that has a registered lobbyist;
190 or
191 (B) any agency or subdivision of the state, including school districts; and
192 (vi) goods or services provided to or for the benefit of the filing entity at less than fair
193 market value.
194 (b) "Contribution" does not include:
195 (i) services provided without compensation by individuals volunteering a portion or all
196 of their time on behalf of the filing entity;
197 (ii) money lent to the filing entity by a financial institution in the ordinary course of
198 business; or
199 (iii) goods or services provided for the benefit of a candidate or political party at less
200 than fair market value that are not authorized by or coordinated with the candidate or political
201 party.
202 (6) "Coordinated with" means that goods or services provided for the benefit of a
203 candidate or political party are provided:
204 (a) with the candidate's or political party's prior knowledge, if the candidate or political
205 party does not object;
206 (b) by agreement with the candidate or political party;
207 (c) in coordination with the candidate or political party; or
208 (d) using official logos, slogans, and similar elements belonging to a candidate or
209 political party.
210 (7) (a) "Corporation" means a domestic or foreign, profit or nonprofit, business
211 organization that is registered as a corporation or is authorized to do business in a state and
212 makes any expenditure from corporate funds for:
213 (i) the purpose of expressly advocating for political purposes; or
214 (ii) the purpose of expressly advocating the approval or the defeat of any ballot
215 proposition.
216 (b) "Corporation" does not mean:
217 (i) a business organization's political action committee or political issues committee; or
218 (ii) a business entity organized as a partnership or a sole proprietorship.
219 (8) "County political party" means, for each registered political party, all of the persons
220 within a single county who, under definitions established by the political party, are members of
221 the registered political party.
222 (9) "County political party officer" means a person whose name is required to be
223 submitted by a county political party to the lieutenant governor in accordance with Section
224 20A-8-402 .
225 (10) "Detailed listing" means:
226 (a) for each contribution or public service assistance:
227 (i) the name and address of the individual or source making the contribution or public
228 service assistance;
229 (ii) the amount or value of the contribution or public service assistance; and
230 (iii) the date the contribution or public service assistance was made; and
231 (b) for each expenditure:
232 (i) the amount of the expenditure;
233 (ii) the person or entity to whom it was disbursed;
234 (iii) the specific purpose, item, or service acquired by the expenditure; and
235 (iv) the date the expenditure was made.
236 (11) (a) "Donor" means a person that gives money, including a fee, due, or assessment
237 for membership in the corporation, to a corporation without receiving full and adequate
238 consideration for the money.
239 (b) "Donor" does not include a person that signs a statement that the corporation may
240 not use the money for an expenditure or political issues expenditure.
241 (12) "Election" means each:
242 (a) regular general election;
243 (b) regular primary election; and
244 (c) special election at which candidates are eliminated and selected.
245 (13) "Electioneering communication" means a communication that:
246 (a) has at least a value of $10,000;
247 (b) clearly identifies a candidate or judge; and
248 (c) is disseminated through the Internet, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising
249 facility, direct mailing, broadcast, cable, or satellite provider within 45 days of the clearly
250 identified candidate's or judge's election date.
251 (14) (a) "Expenditure" means:
252 (i) any disbursement from contributions, receipts, or from the separate bank account
253 required by this chapter;
254 (ii) a purchase, payment, donation, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, gift of money,
255 or anything of value made for political purposes;
256 (iii) an express, legally enforceable contract, promise, or agreement to make any
257 purchase, payment, donation, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, gift of money, or anything of
258 value for political purposes;
259 (iv) compensation paid by a filing entity for personal services rendered by a person
260 without charge to a reporting entity;
261 (v) a transfer of funds between the filing entity and a candidate's personal campaign
262 committee; or
263 (vi) goods or services provided by the filing entity to or for the benefit of another
264 reporting entity for political purposes at less than fair market value.
265 (b) "Expenditure" does not include:
267 of their time on behalf of a reporting entity;
268 (ii) money lent to a reporting entity by a financial institution in the ordinary course of
270 (iii) anything listed in Subsection (14)(a) that is given by a reporting entity to
271 candidates for office or officeholders in states other than Utah.
272 (15) "Federal office" means the office of President of the United States, United States
273 Senator, or United States Representative.
274 (16) "Filing entity" means the reporting entity that is required to file a financial
275 statement required by this chapter or Chapter 12, Part 2, Judicial Retention Elections.
276 (17) "Financial statement" includes any summary report, interim report, verified
277 financial statement, or other statement disclosing contributions, expenditures, receipts,
278 donations, or disbursements that is required by this chapter or Chapter 12, Part 2, Judicial
279 Retention Elections.
280 (18) "Governing board" means the individual or group of individuals that determine the
281 candidates and committees that will receive expenditures from a political action committee,
282 political party, or corporation.
283 (19) "Incorporation" means the process established by Title 10, Chapter 2, Part 1,
284 Incorporation, by which a geographical area becomes legally recognized as a city or town.
285 (20) "Incorporation election" means the election authorized by Section 10-2-111 or
286 10-2-127 .
287 (21) "Incorporation petition" means a petition authorized by Section 10-2-109 or
289 (22) "Individual" means a natural person.
290 (23) "Interim report" means a report identifying the contributions received and
291 expenditures made since the last report.
292 (24) "Legislative office" means the office of state senator, state representative, speaker
293 of the House of Representatives, president of the Senate, and the leader, whip, and assistant
294 whip of any party caucus in either house of the Legislature.
295 (25) "Legislative office candidate" means a person who:
296 (a) files a declaration of candidacy for the office of state senator or state representative;
297 (b) declares oneself to be a candidate for, or actively campaigns for, the position of
298 speaker of the House of Representatives, president of the Senate, or the leader, whip, and
299 assistant whip of any party caucus in either house of the Legislature; or
300 (c) receives contributions, makes expenditures, or gives consent for any other person to
301 receive contributions or make expenditures to bring about the person's nomination, election, or
302 appointment to a legislative office.
303 (26) "Major political party" means either of the two registered political parties that
304 have the greatest number of members elected to the two houses of the Legislature.
305 (27) "Officeholder" means a person who holds a public office.
306 (28) "Party committee" means any committee organized by or authorized by the
307 governing board of a registered political party.
308 (29) "Person" means both natural and legal persons, including individuals, business
309 organizations, personal campaign committees, party committees, political action committees,
310 political issues committees, and labor organizations, as defined in Section 20A-11-1501 .
311 (30) "Personal campaign committee" means the committee appointed by a candidate to
312 act for the candidate as provided in this chapter.
313 (31) "Personal use expenditure" has the same meaning as provided under Section
314 20A-11-104 .
315 (32) (a) "Political action committee" means an entity, or any group of individuals or
316 entities within or outside this state, a major purpose of which is to:
317 (i) solicit or receive contributions from any other person, group, or entity for political
318 purposes; or
319 (ii) make expenditures to expressly advocate for any person to refrain from voting or to
320 vote for or against any candidate or person seeking election to a municipal or county office.
321 (b) "Political action committee" includes groups affiliated with a registered political
322 party but not authorized or organized by the governing board of the registered political party
323 that receive contributions or makes expenditures for political purposes.
324 (c) "Political action committee" does not mean:
325 (i) a party committee;
326 (ii) any entity that provides goods or services to a candidate or committee in the regular
327 course of its business at the same price that would be provided to the general public;
328 (iii) an individual;
329 (iv) individuals who are related and who make contributions from a joint checking
330 account;
331 (v) a corporation, except a corporation a major purpose of which is to act as a political
332 action committee; or
333 (vi) a personal campaign committee.
334 (33) "Political convention" means a county or state political convention held by a
335 registered political party to select candidates.
336 (34) (a) "Political issues committee" means an entity, or any group of individuals or
338 (i) solicit or receive donations from any other person, group, or entity to assist in
339 placing a ballot proposition on the ballot, assist in keeping a ballot proposition off the ballot, or
340 to advocate that a voter refrain from voting or vote for or vote against any ballot proposition;
341 (ii) make expenditures to expressly advocate for any person to sign or refuse to sign a
342 ballot proposition or incorporation petition or refrain from voting, vote for, or vote against any
343 proposed ballot proposition or an incorporation in an incorporation election; or
344 (iii) make expenditures to assist in qualifying or placing a ballot proposition on the
345 ballot or to assist in keeping a ballot proposition off the ballot.
346 (b) "Political issues committee" does not mean:
347 (i) a registered political party or a party committee;
348 (ii) any entity that provides goods or services to an individual or committee in the
349 regular course of its business at the same price that would be provided to the general public;
352 account; or
354 issues committee.
355 (35) (a) "Political issues contribution" means any of the following:
356 (i) a gift, subscription, unpaid or partially unpaid loan, advance, or deposit of money or
357 anything of value given to a political issues committee;
358 (ii) an express, legally enforceable contract, promise, or agreement to make a political
359 issues donation to influence the approval or defeat of any ballot proposition;
360 (iii) any transfer of funds received by a political issues committee from a reporting
361 entity;
362 (iv) compensation paid by another reporting entity for personal services rendered
363 without charge to a political issues committee; and
364 (v) goods or services provided to or for the benefit of a political issues committee at
365 less than fair market value.
366 (b) "Political issues contribution" does not include:
368 of their time on behalf of a political issues committee; or
369 (ii) money lent to a political issues committee by a financial institution in the ordinary
370 course of business.
371 (36) (a) "Political issues expenditure" means any of the following:
372 (i) any payment from political issues contributions made for the purpose of influencing
373 the approval or the defeat of:
374 (A) a ballot proposition; or
375 (B) an incorporation petition or incorporation election;
376 (ii) a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money made for
377 the express purpose of influencing the approval or the defeat of:
381 political issues expenditure;
382 (iv) compensation paid by a reporting entity for personal services rendered by a person
383 without charge to a political issues committee; or
384 (v) goods or services provided to or for the benefit of another reporting entity at less
385 than fair market value.
386 (b) "Political issues expenditure" does not include:
391 (37) "Political purposes" means an act done with the intent or in a way to influence or
392 tend to influence, directly or indirectly, any person to refrain from voting or to vote for or
393 against any candidate or a person seeking a municipal or county office at any caucus, political
394 convention, or election.
395 (38) (a) "Poll" means the survey of a person regarding the person's opinion or
396 knowledge of an individual who has filed a declaration of candidacy for public office, or of a
397 ballot proposition that has legally qualified for placement on the ballot, which is conducted in
398 person or by telephone, facsimile, Internet, postal mail, or email.
399 (b) "Poll" does not include:
400 (i) a ballot; or
401 (ii) an interview of a focus group that is conducted, in person, by one individual, if:
402 (A) the focus group consists of more than three, and less than thirteen, individuals; and
403 (B) all individuals in the focus group are present during the interview.
404 (39) "Primary election" means any regular primary election held under the election
405 laws.
406 (40) "Public office" means the office of governor, lieutenant governor, state auditor,
407 state treasurer, attorney general, state or local school board member, state senator, state
408 representative, speaker of the House of Representatives, president of the Senate, and the leader,
409 whip, and assistant whip of any party caucus in either house of the Legislature.
410 (41) (a) "Public service assistance" means the following when given or provided to an
411 officeholder to defray the costs of functioning in a public office or aid the officeholder to
412 communicate with the officeholder's constituents:
413 (i) a gift, subscription, donation, unpaid or partially unpaid loan, advance, or deposit of
414 money or anything of value to an officeholder; or
415 (ii) goods or services provided at less than fair market value to or for the benefit of the
416 officeholder.
417 (b) "Public service assistance" does not include:
418 (i) anything provided by the state;
419 (ii) services provided without compensation by individuals volunteering a portion or all
420 of their time on behalf of an officeholder;
421 (iii) money lent to an officeholder by a financial institution in the ordinary course of
422 business;
423 (iv) news coverage or any publication by the news media; or
424 (v) any article, story, or other coverage as part of any regular publication of any
425 organization unless substantially all the publication is devoted to information about the
427 (42) "Publicly identified class of individuals" means a group of 50 or more individuals
428 sharing a common occupation, interest, or association that contribute to a political action
429 committee or political issues committee and whose names can be obtained by contacting the
430 political action committee or political issues committee upon whose financial statement the
431 individuals are listed.
432 (43) "Receipts" means contributions and public service assistance.
433 (44) "Registered lobbyist" means a person registered under Title 36, Chapter 11,
434 Lobbyist Disclosure and Regulation Act.
435 (45) "Registered political action committee" means any political action committee that
436 is required by this chapter to file a statement of organization with the Office of the Lieutenant
437 Governor.
438 (46) "Registered political issues committee" means any political issues committee that
441 (47) "Registered political party" means an organization of voters that:
442 (a) participated in the last regular general election and polled a total vote equal to 2%
443 or more of the total votes cast for all candidates for the United States House of Representatives
444 for any of its candidates for any office; or
445 (b) has complied with the petition and organizing procedures of Chapter 8, Political
446 Party Formation and Procedures.
447 (48) (a) "Remuneration" means a payment:
448 (i) made to a legislator for the period the Legislature is in session; and
449 (ii) that is approximately equivalent to an amount a legislator would have earned
450 during the period the Legislature is in session in the legislator's ordinary course of business.
451 (b) "Remuneration" does not mean anything of economic value given to a legislator by:
452 (i) the legislator's primary employer in the ordinary course of business; or
453 (ii) a person or entity in the ordinary course of business:
454 (A) because of the legislator's ownership interest in the entity; or
455 (B) for services rendered by the legislator on behalf of the person or entity.
456 (49) "Reporting entity" means a candidate, a candidate's personal campaign committee,
457 a judge, a judge's personal campaign committee, an officeholder, a party committee, a political
458 action committee, a political issues committee, a corporation, or a labor organization, as
459 defined in Section 20A-11-1501 .
460 (50) "School board office" means the office of state school board or local school board.
461 (51) (a) "Source" means the person or entity that is the legal owner of the tangible or
462 intangible asset that comprises the contribution.
463 (b) "Source" means, for political action committees and corporations, the political
464 action committee and the corporation as entities, not the contributors to the political action
465 committee or the owners or shareholders of the corporation.
466 (52) "State office" means the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general,
467 state auditor, and state treasurer.
468 (53) "State office candidate" means a person who:
469 (a) files a declaration of candidacy for a state office; or
472 appointment to a state office.
473 (54) "Summary report" means the year end report containing the summary of a
474 reporting entity's contributions and expenditures.
475 (55) "Supervisory board" means the individual or group of individuals that allocate
476 expenditures from a political issues committee.
477 Section 5. Section 20A-11-1203 is amended to read:
478 20A-11-1203. Public entity prohibited from expending public funds on certain
479 electoral matters.
480 (1) Unless specifically required by law, a public entity may not make an expenditure
481 from public funds for political purposes or to influence a ballot proposition.
482 (2) Nothing in this chapter prohibits a public official from speaking, campaigning,
483 contributing personal money, or otherwise exercising the public official's individual First
484 Amendment rights for political purposes.
485 (3) Nothing in this chapter prohibits a public entity from providing factual information
486 about a ballot proposition to the public, so long as the information grants equal access to both
487 the opponents and proponents of the ballot proposition.
488 (4) Nothing in this chapter prohibits a public entity from the neutral encouragement of
489 voters to vote.
490 [(5) Nothing in this chapter prohibits a public entity from preparing information
491 analyzing the pros and cons of a ballot proposition when requested to do so by the public
492 entity's governing body.]
493 [(6)] (5) Nothing in this chapter prohibits an elected official from campaigning or
494 advocating for or against a ballot proposition.
495 [(7)] (6) A violation of this section does not invalidate an otherwise valid election.
[Bill Documents][Bills Directory]


Once again, this white tops our list of very favorite wines. There are only three or four people making quality Trousseau Gris here in the New World. You see, there just isn't that much of it planted here in the Golden State, which makes this grape both rare and delicious. Lethal combo!
Winemakers/ proprietors / husband and wife team Mark Porembski and Jennifer Williams make this wine together and we are so proud to be one of the only places on the planet to have it on our shelves.
From a 35 year old vineyard in the Russian River Valley, this is a beautiful white wine, best nicely chilled, ideal for summer sipping and for pairing with infinite delicious meals. This vintage is minerally and remarkably fantastic!


Purpose Responsible for coordinating and managing office functions and providing assistance to the Administrator daily Provides assistance to other department heads and staff as needed Assists with answering phones and..
Employment Type Full Time Meet our professionals CGI An employer of choice Position Description Position Description CGI Federal is seeking a Legal Assistant to support the Department of Justice Executive..
General Office Clerk Robert Half • Omaha NE 68132 Job #885164246 Description Candidate needed for tech desk for technology desk setup. This job consists of rearranging desks, computers, chords, and..
Education High School Diploma or GED Skills Office Experience Accounting Microsoft Office Gottsch Enterprises is looking for a Receptionist for our Elkhorn office. This position will allow a candidate to..
Purpose of Job Communicates to all patients, doctors, nurses, and other employees regarding schedules, charts, insurance issues, and any other concerns that may be addressed. Greets and registers all patients..
Title Clerk Description: The Title Clerk processes car deals, verifies costs for the accounting department, including the costs of reconditioning and equipment add-ons, and handles the legal transfer of documents..
The Holiday Inn Omaha Southwest is your home away from home. Nestled perfectly in the center of Omaha, right off I-80 on 72nd Street , our modern and contemporary property..
Assist all technicians and customers with the purchasing of parts and supplies, achieve monthly sales and gross forecasts, and seek out and solicit parts business. What you will do Assist..
Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration Advanced Medical Support Assistant (Outpatient Nursing- Bellevue CBOC) in Bellevue Nebraska Duties Help Duties Summary The Advanced Medical Support Assistant position is assigned to Outpatient..
Beacon Hill Legal is seeking a legal assistant/legal secretary for a temp to hire opportunity at a law firm in Omaha. Candidates must have 1 year prior experience in a..
Corporate Communications Intern - Corporate Home Office Kiewit Corporation • Omaha NE 68132 Job #885164201 Corporate Communications Intern - Corporate Home Office Date: Apr 17, 2019 Location: Omaha, NE, US..
Ref ID: 02500-0010859764 Classification: Accounts Receivable Clerk Compensation: $15.00 to $17.00 per hour Are you a self-starting and detail-oriented Accounts Receivable (A/R) Clerk? This is a long-term temporary-to-full-time Accounts Receivable..
Installed Sales Coordinator -** FT- WITH BENEFITS - ON THE SPOT INTERVIEWS ON WEDNESDAYS!** Lowe's • Omaha NE 68132 Job #886294316 Job Description: Position DescriptionResponsible for coordinating and scheduling installations..
Purpose of Job Supports patient care delivery by providing clerical services. Job Requirements Education High school diploma, General Educational Development (GED) or equivalent required Experience License/Certifications Skills/Knowledge/Abilities Excellent interpersonal and..
TitleInternal - Scheduling Secretary ORLocationMillard Fillmore SuburbanDepartment13401 - MFS Operating RmsRecruiterHeather ModenUnion Code22 - CWA 1168 Suburban TCCShiftDaysWeekend/ Holiday RequirementNo Weekends or Holidays RequiredScheduled Work Hours8:00am-4:00pm, 8:30am-4:30pm, 9:00am-5:00pmStatusPart TimeBi-Weekly Hours45GradeC6Auto..
Location: CUMC Bergan Cardiology Clinic Position Type: Regular Scheduled Hours per 2 week Pay Period: 80 Primary Location: NE > OMAHA > CHC CUMC-BERGAN MERCY Sign On Bonus and Loan..
Position: Administrative AssistantLocation: Omaha NE 68127Duration: 12 Months Contract40 hours a weeksShift: 1st Pay rate: $16.00hr Position Description:This role is HEAVY into Excel use. Candidate needs to have a thorough..
Infogroup is looking for top talent to join our dynamic and innovative team. We are currently seeking a Compilation Associate, POI to join our Papillion, NE office.This position is responsible..
TitleInternal - Patient Care CoordinatorLocationMillard Fillmore SuburbanDepartment24428 - MFS Patient ManagementRecruiterHeather ModenUnion Code15 - CWA 1168 Millard Suburban RNShiftDaysWeekend/ Holiday RequirementWeekend and/or Holiday Scheduling RequiredScheduled Work Hours8:00am-4:00pm, 8:30am-4:30pmStatusFull TimeBi-Weekly Hours75GradeRN3Auto..


Nagarkot is one of the tall hills at the East of the Kathamndu valley. Over the years numerous hotels have been built here. But Om Manla is far from all the bustle to offer you one of the best views of Mt.Everest and the Hiamalayan range.


Jerry Dutton, a prominent thoroughbred trainer in California for more than 50 years, died Thursday in his native Idaho. He was 87.
The Del Mar track in California confirmed the death Friday.
Among Dutton's stakes winners were Century's Envoy, Zama Hummer, Starry Ice, Elaine's Angel and Wild Babe. He saddled Confederate Yankee in the 1974 Kentucky Derby to a 12th-place finish in a 23-horse field.
According to Equibase, his trainees earned more than $20 million since 1966 with 1,624 winners from 12,645 starters.
Hall of Fame trainer Jerry Hollendorfer started his training career as an assistant to Dutton, who also helped jockeys Jerry Lambert and Roberto Gonzalez in their riding careers.


text:
Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the arbitration of securities fraud claims. It was originally brought by a group of Texas investors against their brokerage house. By a 5–4 margin the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and ruled that their claims under the Securities Act of 1933, which regulates trading in the primary market, must be arbitrated as stipulated in their customer agreements.

The decision overruled a 1953 case, Wilko v. Swan. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion found that arbitration procedures offered more adequate protection for investors than they had when that case was decided. John Paul Stevens's short dissent criticized the majority for taking it upon itself to overturn a precedent that, he argued, Congress had purposely left intact during a major overhaul of the securities laws in the mid-1970s. Both criticized the Fifth Circuit for having overruled Wilko before the Court itself did, reminding lower courts that only the Supreme Court could overrule itself, an aspect of the decision that has come in for some criticism.

Many courts besides the Fifth Circuit had chosen to disregard Wilko after the Supreme Court's own decision in Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon that claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which applies to the secondary market, were also arbitrable if a contract so provided cast serious doubt on the logic of the older case. As a result of Rodriguez de Quijas, many more securities fraud claims were heard in arbitration instead of the courts, an intended outcome that has supporters and critics and led to long-term changes in how the securities industry conducts arbitration. The decision was the last in the Mitsubishi trilogy, which expanded the use of arbitration from contractual disputes to statutory claims during the 1980s.

Underlying dispute

In the early 1980s several small first-time investors in Brownsville, Texas, opened accounts with Shearson/American Express agent Jon Grady Deaton. They included minors, widows, and terminally ill people; some could not understand English. Their investments with him totaled about $400,000 ($ in modern dollars).

They later alleged that Deaton had mismanaged some of the money and churned the accounts, making trades solely to generate commissions for himself. They brought suit in federal court for the Southern District of Texas alleging securities fraud under the applicable state and federal laws. Shearson moved to compel arbitration, as the plaintiffs' customer agreements committed them to using that method of dispute resolution. The district court granted it on all but claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (known in securities law as the "1933 Act"), which regulates trading in the primary market; they were the only ones that the Supreme Court had not ruled arbitrable during recent terms.

Shearson appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking that the 1933 Act claims be arbitrated as well. In 1953 the Supreme Court had explicitly held otherwise in Wilko v. Swan. But in 1987, it had held in Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon that claims under the similar Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"), which regulates the secondary market where the vast majority of securities are traded, were arbitrable, overruling several appeals court precedents that had extended the Wilko holding to the 1934 Act.

McMahons logic, Shearson argued, meant that Wilko was no longer applicable even if the Supreme Court had not yet overruled it. In the two years since that case, many district court judges had taken it upon themselves to overrule it, and while no appeals court had yet upheld those decisions, the Fifth Circuit, in Noble v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, had expressed doubts as to its continuing viability. The plaintiffs argued that Wilko was still good law because it reflected congressional intent to protect investors by guaranteeing them recourse to the courts. Even if it were not, they allowed, the contract still did not clearly establish the parties' intent to arbitrate all claims.

Appeals court

Judges William Homer Thornberry,  Jerre Stockton Williams and W. Eugene Davis were empaneled to hear the case. They heard oral arguments in the case and handed down its decision in May 1988. Unanimously, in a decision written by Williams, they found for Shearson and held Wilko inapplicable.

Williams considered the case in light of McMahon and other recent arbitration jurisprudence. While in that case Wilko'''s protections had not been before the Court, the similarities between the 1933 and 1934 acts was close enough that it was hard to see why a holding that applied to one would not also apply to the other. "The reasoning in McMahon completely undermined Wilko ... As McMahon makes clear, the Supreme Court no longer considers arbitration inadequate to protect substantive rights," wrote Williams.

The plaintiffs argued, as Justice Harry Blackmun had in his McMahon dissent, that since Congress had implied a stated attempt to leave Wilkos holding alone during a 1975 revamp of securities laws, it had given its assent and wished 1933 Act claims to be nonarbitrable while 1934 Act claims were. "We find it implausible that Congress intended to prohibit arbitration of Securities Act claims but intended to allow courts to determine the arbitrability of Exchange Act claims," he wrote. While there were, indeed, fine distinctions between the two statutes, "... McMahon, which binds us here, turns solely on the adequacy of arbitration to resolve securities disputes." Since circuit precedent held that the similarities between the two were more significant for interpretation purposes than the differences, "'[w]e thus follow the reasoning of the Supreme Court in McMahon and our own decision in Noble which lead directly to the obsolescence of Wilko and the arbitrability of Securities Act § 12(2) claims." And because McMahon had been handed down before they filed suit, the plaintiffs could not argue that they did not intend to arbitrate a 1933 Act claim since the possibility that they might have to already existed.

Supreme Court

A request for an en banc rehearing of the case was denied a month later. The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. It was granted in November.. Oral arguments were heard in March of 1989.

Oral arguments

Denis Downey, who had represented the plaintiffs from the district court onwards, argued for them. Theodore Krebsbach, who had argued McMahon before the Court, argued again for Shearson. Downey was permitted a short time for rebuttal after Krebsbach finished.

Petitioners

"In the petitioners' view," Downey told the justices, "the Federal Arbitration Act has been read much too broadly." It had been intended, as its language indicated, to put arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other contracts, but courts had more recently been reading it as superseding all other statutes when the two conflicted. "We do not see an elevated federal policy in the Federal Arbitration Act."

Adopting that view, he admitted, would require the Court to reconsider many of its recent decisions on the subject of arbitration. "Our purpose here is, rather than in the absolute sense, to try to create a better comparative balance," Downey said. "We see the Federal Arbitration Act as involving federal policies of considerably less importance than that of the 1933 Securities Act."

The justices asked him to distinguish the two acts. Downey answered that the 1934 Act might have been meant to protect sellers less. He added that the 1933 Act's legislative history was relevant to the present case. "[It] would seem to show that Congress realized that it was important that private enforcement would be used to effectuate the goals [of the act]."

One justice wanted to know about the adhesion issue. Could it be used to defeat the contracts even if they were held arbitrable? It hadn't been discussed in the lower courts, "and that's a major problem in this whole arbitration area," Downey claimed, since it could only have been brought up if the contract was challenged as fraudulently induced. "[D]istrict courts really don't get to review these things until after arbitration," he commented. Leaving such issues to the enforcement stage needlessly delayed dispute resolution, since it was necessary sometimes to rearbitrate the case. "I think if there's a fundamental claim like that, the district court ought to decide it up front."

Downey returned to Wilko and how it was applicable to the facts of the case. "[W]e think it's very clear, based on 36 years of what legal commentators said and based on every decision of this Court with the exception of McMahon, that Wilko said that the waiver of the choices in Section 22 amounted to an attempted waiver of the provision." It was not always possible, he added, to appeal an arbitrators' decision.

In conclusion, Downey told the justices, "our basic position is also that this is the worst possible choice we're being given." He believed any arbitrators would favor the industry, and that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) could not be trusted to look out for the interests of small investors in arbitration. "[T]he Court should give some consideration to protecting the unsophisticated investor." He felt it was ironic to be in this position:

Shearson

Krebsbach began by assuring the justices that arbitration could vindicate the petitioners' rights as well as a trial. The SEC, he said, had already suggested Wilko should be overruled in its McMahon amicus curiae brief. The justices wanted to know if, as they suggested, their claims should still be litigated even if the Court overruled Wilko because they had signed their agreements before McMahon. He believed they could be arbitrated since it would not be found prejudicial.

Sandra Day O'Connor asked Krebsbach where the cases would be arbitrated. "It would take place usually in the venue closest to where the plaintiff resides" notwithstanding the absence of contractual language to that effect. "That has been the practice for as long as I can recall."

Krebsbach returned to his argument. "[T]he Court has articulated time and time again over the past 15 years that a plaintiff does not waive substantive rights in arbitration," he said. "There is nothing in the Securities Act of 1933, any more than there is in the Exchange Act of 1934, which expresses a Congressional intent to prohibit arbitration of Securities Act claims." While the anti-waiver provisions could have been read that way, McMahon rendered them both moot.

Petitioners were wrong to claim that a sentence in a report on the 1975 amendments indicated Congressional support of Wilko. "Congress never said in this single sentence in 1975 what it thought that the Wilko law was" and McMahon had already rejected that argument. Nor had Congress, in securities law amendments since McMahon, enacted any affecting arbitration.

Krebsbach touted at length the changes to securities arbitration rules since McMahon. Arbitrators would have to disclose more about their background, and those who were recently retired from the industry would no longer be considered members of the public. A transcript of the proceedings would also be required. He conceded, however, that none of these rules would apply to the plaintiffs' case.

Should the Court, Krebsbach was asked, overrule a case that had depended on statutory interpretation simply because it was wrong, rather than leaving it to Congress? If it did, then there were many other such cases that it would have to overrule. He said that there was no practical difference between the two acts, and that if the Court declined to overrule Wilko it would not be undermining McMahon. "I think it would also cause a lot of confusion with respect to the arbitration of other statutory disputes," he said. "Wilko really stands alone with respect to this Court's arbitration jurisprudence, in that it's really the only case where it in the first instance presumed that the arbitration forum was inadequate."

"I believe that the Court in McMahon also said that Congress has left this issue to the courts because they believe in the first instance it would make no sense for Congress to have to conduct an inquiry on each occasion whether a particular arbitration forum was inadequate," he elaborated. " Prodded on why Congress itself might not have acted, he said "I believe that they think that the [current securities] arbitration system is adequate."

Krebsbach admitted that his argument was ultimately that the arbitration system was now adequate to protect investors' rights, and that by doing so it would reduce the burden on the federal courts. "It's not necessarily the reason, but that would be one of the results." Again he touted the rule changes: Attorneys would now have subpoena power, there would be prehearing conferences to resolve any side disputes, and arbitrators could refer to the securities industry's self-regulatory organizations any action that they believed merited disciplinary proceedings.

"Respondents believe that the stare decisis doctrine is best served by the Court ruling that [Wilko] is no longer good law," Krebsbach argued again, addressing concerns about Wilko having been settled law for so many years. "If [it] is overruled, there will be a consistent interpretation and application by this Court of the Federal Arbitration Act in numerous decisions over the past 15 years."

Rebuttal

It had been two years since McMahon, Downey noted, none of the changes Krebsbach promised had been made. Nor were two that he felt very important even proposed. Arbitrators would not be required to give legal reasons for their decisions, making appeals more difficult, nor had the selection process been reformed. "The truth is that we think the industry cheats."

In response to O'Connor, Downey said Krebsbach had not indicated that the arbitrations were scheduled to take place in Dallas, approximately  from Brownsville. "We don't trust securities arbitration," Downey repeated. "If Mr. Krebsbach were to go outside in the hall and offer to enter into an agreement to arbitrate that wasn't an [industry] arbitration, we'd be much more inclined to do so."

Decision

The Court handed down its decision in May, almost two months later. By a 5–4 margin it had sided with Shearson, ruling that the claims must be arbitrated and overruling Wilko. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun.

Majority

"To the extent that Wilko rested on suspicion of arbitration as a method of weakening the protections afforded in the substantive law to would-be complainants," Kennedy wrote, "it has fallen far out of step with our current strong endorsement of the federal statutes favoring this method of resolving disputes." The three aspects of the 1933 Act that the Wilko Court had found to bar the waiver of the right to litigate were purly procedural and did not confer any substantive protections. Specifically, the provision that allowed claims to be filed in state court under the act without the possibility of removal to federal court amounted to a waiver of the procedural protections federal civil procedure might grant to a plaintiff. In other recent cases, the Court had found that neither the similar provisions of the 1934 Act nor the Sherman Act prevented claims under them from being resolved in arbitration. And the FAA allowed for an arbitration agreement to be voided just like any other contract.

Kennedy rebuked the Fifth Circuit for "renouncing" Wilko. "If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions." He confirmed that the Court was overruling Wilko as "inconsistent with the prevailing uniform construction of other federal statutes governing arbitration agreements in the setting of business transactions." In this specific instance there was a further reason:

Having established that Wilko was overruled, Kennedy considered the petitioners' request that if the Court did so it should nevertheless not apply it to their case or any other pending litigation. "We disagree," he wrote. "The general rule of long standing is that the law announced in the Court's decision controls the case at bar." There had been exceptions, such as Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, but the logic of that case dicated a retroactive application of the decision here. "Although our decision to overrule Wilko establishes a new principle of law for arbitration agreements under the Securities Act, this ruling furthers the purposes and effect of the Arbitration Act without undermining those of the Securities Act" since the plaintiffs had not agreed to arbitrate based in whole or part on Wilko not being overruled."

Dissent

Stevens joined Kennedy in criticizing the Fifth Circuit's decision to go against Wilko, calling it "an indefensible brand of judicial activism." He extended that criticism to the Court itself. "When our earlier opinion gives a statutory provision concrete meaning, which Congress elects not to amend during the ensuing 3½ decades," he wrote, "our duty to respect Congress' work product is strikingly similar to the duty of other federal courts to respect our work product."

As a judge of the Seventh Circuit, Stevens reminded his colleagues, he had dissented from that court's holding in the case that eventually reached the Supreme Court as Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., a key arbitration precedent where Potter Stewart had made a "colorable argument" that the 1933 and 1934 acts were dissimilar enough that Wilko might not apply to the latter. "There are valid policy and textual arguments on both sides regarding the interrelation of federal securities and arbitration Acts," he wrote. "None of these arguments, however, carries sufficient weight to tip the balance between judicial and legislative authority and overturn an interpretation of an Act of Congress that has been settled for many years."

Analysis and commentary

Since the decision made almost all securities fraud claims brought by investors against their brokerages arbitrable as almost every customer agreement had a clause mandating it, its practical effect has been to increase the use of arbitration in that context. As such Rodriguez de Quijas was criticized and championed in its aftermath. Another commentator has criticized the Court for its stance against "anticipatory overruling."

The year after the decision, 1990, Indiana University law professor William Hermann summed up where the decision left investors. While his paper was mostly devoted to pending and proposed securities arbitration reforms, he had some comments on the case itself. "To the Rodriguez majority, the policies behind the Arbitration Act, a less significant piece of legislation both in terms of size and scope than the landmark securities statutes, apparently outweighed any other policy considerations," he observed.

Hermann noted that the SEC's enforcement powers were, at the time, "extremely limited". Kennedy's refusal to go into them, instead referring the reader to O'Connor's majority opinion in McMahon, "completely ignored Justice Blackmun's concerns in McMahon, and the realities of the current environment." He concluded that "The Supreme Court, in what may be seen as a blatant attempt to reduce the federal docket, has made itself undeniably clear: Wilko is dead and arbitration is king."

Loyola Law School professor Lydia Hervatin offered an extended critique of the majority opinion in a 1991 paper. "[N]either the majority's questioning of Wilko, nor the Court's grounds for overruling Wilko can be logically justified," she wrote. On the first ground, the Court had "failed to elucidate why a statute
prohibiting waiver of 'any provision' should be read as prohibiting only waivers of any substantive provision," since previous decisions had recognized that procedural issues could affect the outcome of a case.

Hervatin had more to say about the majority's judgement that arbitration was now more suitable for dispute resolution than it had been in 1953. "Having dismissed the Wilko Court's holding as the result of an outdated bias," she wrote,

"Viewing Rodriguez de Quijas in its historical context" Hervatin continued, "raises more basic issues as to the intellectual honesty of the opinion." If, as the Court contended, the decision was necessitated by the need to ensure that the 1933 and 1934 Acts were interpreted harmoniously and consistently, then it should have acknowledged that it had itself created the inconsistency. "The process leading the Court to Rodriguez de Quijas resembles that of a doctor seeking to euthanize a patient whose ill health arose from the physician's neglect," she wrote. "If Wilko and McMahon are so fatally inconsistent, perhaps the Court should have considered the matter in writing McMahon."

The majority had also failed to consider what the differences between the two acts demonstrated about Congressional intent, Hervatin argued. The 1933 Act's grant of the investor's choice of any state or federal jurisdiction was intended to allow the customer the choice to litigate or arbitrate at the outset, while the limitation to federal jurisdiction in the 1934 Act was meant only to speed litigation by eliminating the requirement to prove diversity of citizenship at the outset. By holding predispute arbitration agreements enforceable, the Court had effectively limited the customer's choice of forum and broadened the broker's, since "[t]he customer usually has a right to compel the broker to arbitrate regardless of the existence of a predispute agreement."

Hervatin reiterated aspects of Blackmun's McMahon dissent, pointing out that the Rodriguez de Quijas majority had ignored Wilko's public-policy justifications entirely. Stevens's dissent in Rodriguez de Quijas pointing to Congress's silence on the issue, she added, made the "majority's reliance on federal pro-arbitration policy appear all the more misplaced." She chastised the majority for saying that the petitioners had failed to meet their burden of proof without suggesting how they might have done so, and concluded that "The majority's reasoning thus displays a marked asymmetry in the Court's openness to assumptions beyond the record and suggests that the majority's defense of its decision was more of an after-the-fact rationalization than an explanation of the basis for its opinion."

Defending Rodriguez de Quijas later that same year was Gregory Malson, a student at Golden Gate University School of Law. "[T]he investor today is fully protected in an arbitral forum, " he wrote, "and ... the advantages to the investor who arbitrates a claim against their broker are expansive." He touted both the reforms to the procedure and a recent decision by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in that state, allowing investors to choose to arbitrate before the American Arbitration Association even where their contracts specified the internal panels of the NASD or the exchanges, as boding well for the many investors who would now have to arbitrate their claims.

Nebraska law professor C. Steven Bradford criticized Rodriguez de Quijas for an entirely different reason: its rejection of the anticipatory overruling of Wilko by the Fifth Circuit and the other lower courts. While there had been two lines of jurisprudence on the issue of whether the lower courts should feel bound by precedent the Supreme Court seemed reasonably likely to overrule, in Rodriguez de Quijas "the Court finally spoke in favor of blind obedience to precedent." It was long overdue, he wrote, but:

While Kennedy had criticized the majority opinion quite strongly, he had used even harsher language to join Kennedy in reprimanding the Fifth Circuit. "Thus, all of the justices summarily rejected anticipatory overruling, without considering its possible benefits," Bradford wrote. But the majority's Rodriguez de Quijas arguments themselves contradicted McMahon's reading of Wilko. Where O'Connor in the earlier case had held that Wilko rejected arbitration only as inadequate to protect an investor's substantive rights, Kennedy read Wilko as inherently inapplicable to the substantive provisions.

The Court had tolerated anticipatory overruling in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education and at the end of the Lochner era, Bradford observed. This had broad social benefits:

Bradford called Rodriguez de Quijas "a knee-jerk reaction by the Supreme Court to the refusal
of the lower courts to accept an iron-clad rule of stare decisis''." He called for reconsideration.

See also
Arbitration case law in the United States
List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 490

References

External links

1989 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
United States arbitration case law
United States securities case law
United States statutory interpretation case law
United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision
American Express

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
The 2018 Swedish Golf Tour was the 35th season of the Swedish Golf Tour.

Most of tournaments also featured on the 2018 Nordic Golf League.

Schedule
The following table lists official events during the 2018 season.

Order of Merit
The Order of Merit was based on prize money won during the season, calculated using a points-based system.

See also
2018 Danish Golf Tour
2018 Swedish Golf Tour (women)

Notes

References

Swedish Golf Tour
Swedish Golf Tour


text:
Pettyfer est un patronyme porté notamment par :

 Alex Pettyfer (1990-), acteur et mannequin anglais ;
 Joel Pettyfer (1987-), catcheur anglais.


For detailed requirement sharing, you can email us. Our team will get back to you within one working day.
Discuss your project and specific requirements with our sales representatives. Share the functions needs that help us in understanding your business and deliver the best IT Solution. We handover your request to technical team to proceed further for development based on your preferred technology.


Provider of business research on-demand for corporations.
Whale Path, the on-demand business research platform led by co-founders Artem Gassan and Colin Gu, have raised $1.1 million in seed funding and adopted a new business model for their custom business research startup.
Whale Path has developed an on-demand research platform that offers business research such as market intelligence and competitive analysis, done by postgraduate students it vets. It says it can deliver customized reports three times faster and at half the price of traditional research vendors.


Hear the words "plastic surgery," and duck pouts, frozen foreheads and Barbie-esque figures indigenous to Hollywood will spring into your mind. But the cosmetic circles are promoting an 'au naturel' trend amongst influencers and models that may have already hit your Insta-feed without you realizing at first glance. Despite becoming a de rigueur in the fashion savvy world, cosmetic surgery has come under scrutiny especially when celebs become beyond recognizable – perhaps rightfully so.
HTV caught up with Dr. Fahad Mirza, a plastic/reconstructive and cosmetic surgeon to get an expert opinion on the ins and outs of all things 'synthetically' beautiful. Dr. Mirza is a Consultant Plastic Surgeon at Ziauddin Medical University Hospital. He also performs non-surgical and surgical aesthetic surgeries. But that's not all; the doc has got a few more tricks up his sleeves as he is an occasional actor and model as well. Dr. Mirza who devotes 99% of his time to medicine, believes that beauty is an absolute physical reality.
Taking the liberty of saying it bluntly – yours is a sensitive profession which has come under scrutiny time and again. Proponents would say that 'you help people feel a little better about themselves,' while opponents would argue that it promotes superficial standards of beauty. Your take on it.
He further specifies that fillers have serious side effects – if injected intravascular, blindness or deadness can occur. It is also advised to sit upright for at least four hours after Botox injections. Lying down, running or jumping is forbidden. A single dose of antibiotics is recommended after implants.
At what age do you think a procedure is appropriate?
"It's set in stone that I never take patients below the age of 18, especially for aesthetic procedures. I do not take patients less than 21 years of age requesting facial changes because their features are still developing." He deems 30 years or above an age bracket for an ideal patient – independent, well-informed people looking for self-improvement.
What is the ratio between men and women opting for such treatments – celebs and non-entities?
For rejuvenation purposes, women are more inclined towards these procedures. Almost 9 out of 10 patients are female. Men consult mostly for hair thinning which can be successfully treated. Surprisingly, men from our media industry don't shy away from these treatments. "Male celebrities do like to opt for fillers to augment their chin, nose or jawline, for looks are a prerequisite in their line of work. The percentage is close to 60% females to 40% males in the world of glitz and glamour," he quips.
With all these advancements and awareness, why do we see a job gone drastically nasty every once in a while locally or internationally?
"The key is to observe the beautiful normal." He expresses that you cannot invent a new face; you can just beautify the existing natural features. A trained, qualified doctor also needs to have an artistic eye to perform these non-surgical beautification procedures as its more like facial sculpting.
Let's talk about John Mayer…After his vocal chords were damaged by growth, the singer credited two things for his ability to sing again: surgery and Botox injections. Experts are finding more than one ways to use the toxin. Are these non-cosmetic uses acknowledged in Pakistan?
It's not a little-known secret that Botox with its power to temporarily paralyze muscles helps more than smoothing wrinkles. Experts now rely on it for treating effects of chronic migraines, depression, Cerebral Palsy to name a few. However, it's a dangerous drug and can even cause death. If injected in bloodstream it may paralyze breathing muscles therefore only controlled dosages under qualified supervision are suggested. The world is adapting to its non-cosmetic uses gradually.
Is there any ethical dilemma involved and have you ever refused patients due to such reasons?
Your message to millennials who are chasing unrealistic and unhealthy beauty ideals.


55 comms is committed to the values that underpin all good journalism - honesty, accuracy and precision. 55 comms will provide a level of service carved out of many years of the highest-level journalism which demanded integrity, a clear mind and the ability to work quickly without forsaking attention to detail. Those values also demand a respect for the past but a willingness to learn and master changing practices.
55 comms works quickly and effectively – a habit fine-tuned by working to media deadlines across the world. This skill, when combined with the frontline media experience gained by only a few journalists in Australia, provides excellent value for money.
Clients can also be assured of working with Michael Crutcher, receiving his insights and personal touch on all work.
55 comms does not cover the broader spectrum of communications work, instead focusing on areas of expertise. 55 comms refers clients for work outside of its specialist areas to valued, proven partners.


text:
Found Car-Lost History: The Hunt For The Story on the 1953 Gussenbauer Special
Posted on April 15, 2020 by Geoff HackerMay 31, 2020
Hi Gang…
This car has been close to home for us since we started Undiscovered Classics in 2006. Robert Cohen's 1953 Gussenbauer Special has been on display at the Sarasota Classic Car Museum for around 15 years. It's a "one of one" custom-built steel bodied American Special. The history that came with the car was that it was built and perhaps raced by Walter Gussenbauer of California, and that he had built several other cars too.
Good friend Ron Cummings, automobile historian extraordinaire, shared the following photo with us back in 2012, along with the following information:
"The photo shows Walter Gussenbauer cars at Willow Springs 1956-57. Walter built 5 road racing specials. The last one had a tube frame. The rest used cut down Ford frames. He apparently built 12 cars, most where street rods."
Walter Gussenbauer Cars at Willow Springs Raceway in 1956-1957. Photo From Ron Cummings Collection
Let's explore the history of Robert's car from purchase thru today and current photos.
Car For Sale: 1986
As we have continued to build our magazine archives here at Undiscovered Classics, we started acquiring magazines from the 1980s. One of the magazines that was new to me was CMN Motor News – which later combined with Kit Car Monthly around 1986. As we started going thru these 1980s magazines, we found an ad for the Gussenbaur for sale.
By the 1990s, the car had been researched more thoroughly and had changed ownership. It was now for sale in Florida where current owner Robert Cohen bought the car – and then restored it. Here are photos of the car before restoration began:
Robert worked with Phil Babcock of Ft. Myers, Florida to bring the car back to its original beauty. Phil's website still shows the Gussenbauer being restored (Click Here to View the Gussenbauer at Phil Babcock's Restoration Shop) and you can see some of these photos below.
What's Under The Hood You Ask? Why it's a Mercury Flathead V8 with dual carbs, finned aluminum high-compression heads and a Ford 3-speed manual transmission.
Here are photos taken of the Gussenbaurer Special late in 2019. It is now on display at the Sarasota Classic Car Museum.
This is the perfect project for one of our Undiscovered Classics aficionados out there. Anyone want to help with research? Or perhaps some of you know more information about Gussenbauer that would help build our knowledge base on this car. Jump on in gang….all help is greatly appreciated from Robert and myself.
Hope you enjoyed the story, and remember…
The adventure continues here at Undiscovered Classics.
<!- 1080 ->Click On The Links Below To Learn More
Currrent Story Categories: 1953 Gussenbauer Special, Lost Cars, Mystery Cars, Sport Customs permalink
Found Car-Lost History: The Hunt For The Story on the 1953 Gussenbauer Special — 4 Comments
bdk on April 15, 2020 at 8:14 pm said:
Seems like an unusual namee- could there be more than one Joe Alphabet?
Joe Alphabet and the Alpha One GTO
https://silodrome.com/ferrari-alpha-one-gto-tom-cruise-vanilla-sky/
Geoff, he seems to even be a Facebook friend of yours!
Geoffrey Hacker on April 15, 2020 at 9:28 pm said:
Interesting. So many friends….Facebook is a great connection tool but hard to manage it and get to know everyone. I'll check it out. Thanks Brandon. Geoff
Keith Gurnick on April 15, 2020 at 6:52 pm said:
What a Gusse !
It took an average of 2000 hours to build a finished fiberglass sports car from a kit bought in the early and mid 1950s. That is nearly a full year (50 out of 52 weeks) of 40 hour weeks! And we wonder why today so few attempted this ambitious adventure.
11 guests, 14 bots, 0 members

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


If you are interested in pvc privacy fence with lattice , zhejiang jovyea plastic profile co.,ltd If you are interested in 1related results, so you can compare and shop! Try finding the one that is right for you by choosing the price range, brand, or specifications that meet your needs.
What horse fence should we choose? 2 rail pvc fence?3 rail fence?or 4 rail fence? It depends on how large your animals are. If the animals are large,you can choose the 2 rail horse fence.
vinyl picket fencing/ low maintenance,you will never worry about painting or staining again.


text:
Bush Boom Continues
Europe's Energy Crisis: Inflation — and Some of What Comes with It
No, Gun Culture Has Not Been Radicalized
Seditious Conspiracy Is the Wrong Charge in the Capitol-Riot Prosecutions
By Larry Kudlow
About Larry Kudlow
Follow Larry Kudlow on Twitter
You can call it Goldilocks 2.0. But you can't call it a recession.
Following last week's solid jobs report, the New York Times got back to its Bush-bashing recession mantra with the front-page headline: "Slowing Growth and Jobs Seen as Ominous Sign for the Economy."
This chant has been going on for quite some time. Doom and gloom from the economic pessimists has been political sport for seven years, even though the Bush boom just celebrated its sixth anniversary. The current expansion is now in its 74th month — 17 months longer than the average 57-month business cycle since World War II.
Jobs are an "ominous sign for the economy"? The latest jobs report says America is still working, with 94,000 new corporate payrolls in November and a rolling average of 103,000 job increases for the past three months. Along with a 4.7 percent unemployment rate, there is no evidence of a recessionary collapse in jobs. Even the household job count, which picks up small businesses, surged 696,000 in November, with a 303,000 average gain over the past three months.
Jobs are paying more, too. Worker wages are rising 3.8 percent over the past year, a full percentage point ahead of inflation. In fact, growth in total compensation for the entire workforce is rising at a 3.3 percent pace after inflation. University of Michigan Professor Mark Perry, writing in his Carpe Diem blog, says this is the best performance in seven years.
But wait, there's more. U.S. productivity surged 6.3 percent in the third quarter, its best pace in four years. A big rise in output per person is good for profits, growth, and low inflation. Business inflation has come down from 3.5 percent a year ago to 1.5 percent today. U.S. household net worth just scored a new record high of $58.6 trillion, with financial asset gains outpacing the drop in real estate values.
According to Prof. Perry, household wealth has increased 43 percent in just the past five years, despite $100 oil, $3 gas, and the sub-prime infection. The stock market, which is probably the best leading indicator of the future economy, appears just as resilient. Despite these same challenges, it is overcoming a brief correction and looks set to rise by roughly 10 percent this year.
Yes, economic growth may indeed pause to roughly 2 percent in the next couple of quarters, the result of two years of overly tight money from the Federal Reserve and the ensuing upturn in sub-prime defaults and foreclosures. You can call it Goldilocks 2.0. But you can't call it a recession.
Even the housing market has its share of positive developments. Mortgage refinancings are up nearly 70 percent as mortgage rates on fifteen- and thirty-year loans are down nearly 100 basis points. Such events may help cushion the plunge in home sales and will eventually stabilize prices.
Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Paulson has put together a modest refinancing safety net that grants poorer homeowners some breathing room in which to modify and work-out jumps in low teaser rates. The Paulson plan would shift borrowers into FHA-insured refinancings, which can be packaged by Ginnie Mae (the Government National Mortgage Association) into new loan pools that will be bought and sold by investors. It's a relatively small plan that could help a half-million borrowers, and it will preempt Democratic efforts to spend billions on direct subsidies or bailouts.
The Fed can aid this plan on Tuesday by getting its target fed funds rate down by 50 basis points. This will take the pressure off adjustable-rate-mortgage increases. What's more, the central bank can help unclog frozen short-term financing problems in the commercial paper market in New York and the interbank LIBOR markets in London. If businesses can't get short-term loans, the economic expansion will be seriously threatened.
The Fed also must undo the inverted Treasury yield curve whereby the 4.5 percent fed funds rate remains well above the 4 percent ten-year Treasury rate. This situation has prevailed for 18 months; unless it's fixed immediately it represents an illiquidity threat that increases the odds of recession. A 3-month Treasury bill around 3 percent is pointing the way for the fed funds rate.
Righting the yield curve and expanding the monetary base by at least twice its current 2 percent growth rate would also provide new oxygen for the low tax rates on investment put in place over four years ago. The incentive effect of these supply-side tax cuts has been smothered by an overly tight Fed. But if Bernanke & Co. move aggressively, business investment and capital formation will soon pick up speed.
This sort of fiscal and monetary coordination will continue the Bush boom for years to come. Though mainstream media outlets will never admit it, President Bush has kept America safe and prosperous. But history will eventually judge him in a more kindly light.
Larry Kudlow is the author of JFK and the Reagan Revolution: A Secret History of American Prosperity, written with Brian Domitrovic. @larry_kudlow
More in Politics & Policy
The Democrats' Long-Term Strategy to Pack the Supreme Court	The Democrats' Long-Term Strategy to Pack the Supreme Court
Inflation — and Some of What Comes with It	Inflation — and Some of What Comes with It
No, Gun Culture Has Not Been Radicalized	No, Gun Culture Has Not Been Radicalized
So Long, Djoker	So Long, Djoker


DHgate > Fashion Accessories > Sunglasses > 2018 New lady polarizing sunglasses, jade nose pads, classic Ladies Sunglasses, driving glasses, Fishing Sunglasses.
2018 New lady polarizing sunglasses, jade nose pads, classic Ladies Sunglasses, driving glasses, Fishing Sunglasses. you can mix everything in my shop together!! High quality; Competitive prices; Rapid transport; Portfolio orders; Drop; Best and timely service; 100% satisfaction. Big discounts on big orders. Welcome to wholesale and retail. If there is anything I can help, please don&'t hesitate to tell me, thank you!
wholesale 2018 New lady polarizing sunglasses, jade nose pads, classic Ladies Sunglasses, driving glasses, Fishing Sunglasses.
Product Name:2018 New lady polarizing sunglasses, jade nose pads, classic Ladies Sunglasses, driving glasses, Fishing Sunglasses.


text:
Lacklustre Finish To 78th Masters After Rich Early Promise
Latest Stories Sports
By Editor April 15, 2014
The 78th Masters began as one of the most wide open in decades, but it will not go down as a classic after a surprisingly lacklustre finish on Sunday when Bubba Watson clinched his second green jacket.
The roars for which the year's first major is famous never materialised on the back nine, mainly due to a scarcity of birdies and eagles, and Watson ultimately eased to victory by three shots.
Instead the only real fireworks during the final round occurred before the turn as 20-year-old American Jordan Spieth made his scintillating early run, four birdies and a bogey briefly putting him two ahead before he faded.
With the notorious Augusta National layout running just about as fast and firm as it can after five days of unrelenting sunshine, danger lurked at every corner and damage limitation was a priority on Sunday rather than birdie hunting.
Of the top 13 players by the time the tournament was over, 50-year-old Spaniard Miguel Angel Jimenez was the only one who covered the back nine under par, testimony to the tricky scoring conditions.
Watson, however, had no complaints about the relative ease of his second Masters victory after the gripping playoff drama of his breakthrough win at Augusta National two years ago.
"No, I feel a lot better," smiled the 35-year-old from Florida. "The shot out of the woods (in 2012) made me famous, but this one was a lot better for me and my nerves, my family, probably on (caddie) Teddy (Scott)."
Scott was also on Watson's bag when the American left-hander edged out South African Louis Oosthuizen to win the 2012 Masters, emerging triumphant on the second extra hole after hitting a miraculous hook shot from pine straw.
In the trees off the tee, Watson had an avenue to the green and struck a superb high draw with a gap wedge from 155 yards, the ball curving 40 yards from left to right before it settled on the green 10 feet from the pin.
DARING SHOT
On Sunday, however, the only daring shot produced by Watson came late on the back nine when the tournament was all but over.
Three strokes in front of the chasing pack, the American hit his tee shot at the par-five 15th well left and ended up being blocked by a few pine trees.
Instead of laying up safely in front of the pond guarding the green, he punched a low six-iron through the pines and over the water, his ball just clearing the false front of the green and going over the back.
"It's 'Bubba golf,'" Watson's caddie said. "Freak show. I can't describe it any other way. Every single day that I play golf with him or watch him play golf I just go, 'How do you do that?'
"And I asked him on 18, after he hit the tee shot, 'Are you from Mars or something? Because I don't believe that you can hit these shots that you hit.'"
On Sunday morning, a heavy whiff of excitement was in the air with an array of dramatic storylines possible by the day's end and nine players separated by just three shots going into the final round.
Spieth, at 20, was aiming to eclipse Tiger Woods by becoming the youngest player to win the Masters while 50-somethings Jimenez, Fred Couples and Bernhard Langer were vying to become the oldest champion at Augusta National.
Watson, co-leader with Spieth after Saturday's third round, had a second green jacket in his sights and the upper reaches of the leaderboard were also dominated by Masters debutants such as Jonas Blixt and Jimmy Walker, plus former major winners like Justin Rose and defending champion Adam Scott.
For the first time since 1994, neither four-times champion Woods nor three-times winner Phil Mickelson was in the tournament over the weekend, opening the door a little wider for other challengers.
Woods had withdrawn from the Masters earlier this month after having surgery to repair a pinched nerve in his back and Mickelson, among the pre-tournament favourites, missed the cut at Augusta National for the first time since 1997.
However, the absence of the game's two biggest drawcards, who have been perennial contenders at the Masters, also led to a noticeable drop-off in electricity and anticipated excitement during the final round.
For many, the 78th Masters will be remembered more for Spieth's brilliant title bid over the front nine on Sunday than for Watson's second major victory.
Spieth has long been touted as one of the game's most exciting young talents, having twice won the U.S. Junior Amateur before becoming at 19 the youngest player to claim a PGA Tour title since 1931 with his victory at last year's John Deere Classic.
Remarkably composed and blessed with abundant talent, Spieth has risen rapidly up through the ranks. He was named PGA Rookie of the Year in 2013 and for much of the front nine on Sunday looked likely to land his first major before his challenge effectively ended with bogeys at the eighth and ninth.
Asked whether his duel with Watson had a match-play feel to it, Spieth replied: "It did late on the front nine and early in the back nine.
"Then after 12, Bubba was pretty far ahead and I had dropped back. I was looking to make a couple of birdies and maybe put some pressure on him but I didn't … that made it a little easier for him."
Based on his swift progress so far at the highest level of the game, Spieth already has the look of a perennial major contender for years to come.
Victorious Juve Close In On Third Straight Title
First 50-Plus Winner Of A Major Could Be Around The Corner
Barnes makes 7 3-pointers in Kings' win over Grizzlies
Former HUD chief Julian Castro moves toward presidential run
Rajapaksa set to quit as Sri Lanka's premier to end crisis
Editor December 15, 2018 December 15, 2018