50 years ago... Inside... - Chattanooga Bar Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10 Friday, June 10, 2011 www.hamiltoncountyherald.com HAMILTON COUNTY HERALD Hamilton County PUBLIC NOTICES NOTICE The Executive Committee of Friends of the Zoo will meet on Tuesday, June 14 at 11 am in the board room at the Chattanooga Zoo located at 301 N. Holtzclaw Avenue. HCH1T-6/10/11 NON-RESIDENT NOTICE STATE OF TENNESSEE, COUNTY OF HAMILTON TAM THUONG THI NGUYEN VS DOCKET NO. 11D578 QUAN DO ANH PHAM It appearing from allegations in Plaintiff’s Bill, which is sworn to, that the defendant is a nonresident of the State of Tennessee, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon QUAN PHAM. IT IS ORDERED that publication be made for four successive weeks in the Hamilton County Herald, a newspaper published in Hamilton County, Tennessee, notifying said non-resident that unless QUAN PHAM answers and makes defense to said complaint in the offi ces of the Circuit Court Clerk of Hamilton County, Tennessee, within thirty (30) days after the fourth weekly publication of this order, the same will be taken as admitted by QUAN PHAM and the case will be set for hearing ex parte or without QUAN PHAM presence. This 31st day of May, 2011. PAULA T. THOMPSON, CIRCUIT COURT CLERK ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF JENNIFER K PECK 699 DALLAS RD CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405 HCH4T-6/10,6/17,6/24,7/1/11 NON-RESIDENT NOTICE STATE OF TENNESSEE, COUNTY OF HAMILTON PEARLINE DENISE HILL VS DOCKET NO. 11D1082 ALAN SCOTT HILL It appearing from allegations in Plaintiff’s Bill, which is sworn to, that the defendant is a nonresident of the State of Tennessee, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon ALAN HILL. IT IS ORDERED that publication be made for four successive weeks in the Hamilton County Herald, a newspaper published in Hamilton County, Tennessee, notifying said non-resident that unless ALAN HILL answers and makes defense to said complaint in the offi ces of the Circuit Court Clerk of Hamilton County, Tennessee, within thirty (30) days after the fourth weekly publication of this order, the same will be taken as admitted by ALAN HILL and the Commentary: You’re a practice group leader – now what? By Edward Poll The Daily Record Newswire The practice group structure has become an accepted organizational model in many firms. Such groups can also, be called departments, teams or some other designation, but the concept behind them is fundamental: to organize and focus the firm’s resources in a given area of legal discipline in order to improve client service quality, marketing performance, lawyer training and development, and competitive effectiveness. Practice groups reinforce to the client that service is provided by the entire firm and not just one lawyer. Ultimately, clients belong to the firm and not to the lawyer, which benefits case will be set for hearing ex parte or without ALAN HILL presence. This 24th day of May, 2011. PAULA T. THOMPSON, CIRCUIT COURT CLERK ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Pro Se HCH4T-6/3,6/10,6/17,6/24/11 NON-RESIDENT NOTICE STATE OF TENNESSEE, COUNTY OF HAMILTON JANET HALL CARTWRIGHT VS DOCKET NO. 11D1067 MICHAEL VERNON CARTWRIGHT It appearing from allegations in Plaintiff’s Bill, which is sworn to, that the defendant is a nonresident of the State of Tennessee, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT. IT IS ORDERED that publication be made for four successive weeks in the Hamilton County Herald, a newspaper published in Hamilton County, Tennessee, notifying said non-resident that unless MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT answers and makes defense to said complaint in the offi ces of the Circuit Court Clerk of Hamilton County, Tennessee, within thirty (30) days after the fourth weekly publication of this order, the same will be taken as admitted by MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT and the case will be set for hearing ex parte or without MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT presence. This 23rd day of May, 2011. PAULA T. THOMPSON, CIRCUIT COURT CLERK ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF RICHARD BRENT TEETER WILLARD BLDG #400 615 LINDSAY ST CHATTANOOGA, TN 37403 HCH4T-6/3,6/10,6/17,6/24/11 NON-RESIDENT NOTICE STATE OF TENNESSEE, COUNTY OF HAMILTON STEPHANIE YVONNE GREENLEE VS DOCKET NO. 11D504 JOHN ALEXANDER HAYES It appearing from allegations in Plaintiff’s Bill, which is sworn to, that the defendant is a nonresident of the State of Tennessee, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon JOHN HAYES. IT IS ORDERED that publication be made for four successive weeks in the Hamilton County Herald, a newspaper published in Hamilton County, Tennessee, notifying said non-resident that unless JOHN HAYES answers and makes defense to said complaint in the offi ces of the firm, lawyer and client alike. When clients rely on the firm as represented by its practice groups, each lawyer benefits as the groups maintain client relationships and generate new ones. Problems start, however, with the fact that practice groups need leaders. Being asked to take such a position recalls Abraham Lincoln’s anecdote about the man who was tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail; if it wasn’t such an “honor,” the fellow said, he’d rather walk. Similarly, the “honor” of being named practice group leader comes with multiple pitfalls: Practice group leaders are still expected to maintain Circuit Court Clerk of Hamilton County, Tennessee, within thirty (30) days after the fourth weekly publication of this order, the same will be taken as admitted by JOHN HAYES and the case will be set for hearing ex parte or without JOHN HAYES presence. This 25th day of May, 2011. PAULA T. THOMPSON, CIRCUIT COURT CLERK ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF RICHARD BRENT TEETER WILLARD BLDG #400 615 LINDSAY ST CHATTANOOGA, TN 37403 HCH4T-6/3,6/10,6/17,6/24/11 NON-RESIDENT NOTICE STATE OF TENNESSEE, COUNTY OF HAMILTON VALERIE RENEE FORD VS DOCKET NO. 11D1090 VINCENT GERARD FORD It appearing from allegations in Plaintiff’s Bill, which is sworn to, that the defendant is a nonresident of the State of Tennessee, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon VINCENT FORD. IT IS ORDERED that publication be made for four successive weeks in the Hamilton County Herald, a newspaper published in Hamilton County, Tennessee, notifying said non-resident that unless VINCENT FORD answers and makes defense to said complaint in the offi ces of the Circuit Court Clerk of Hamilton County, Tennessee, within thirty (30) days after the fourth weekly publication of this order, the same will be taken as admitted by VINCENT FORD and the case will be set for hearing ex parte or without VINCENT FORD presence. This 25th day of May, 2011. PAULA T. THOMPSON, CIRCUIT COURT CLERK ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF PRO SE HCH4T-6/3,6/10,6/17,6/24/11 NON-RESIDENT NOTICE STATE OF TENNESSEE, COUNTY OF HAMILTON CORA VON GIPSON BROWN GARDNER VS DOCKET NO. 11D1023 DWAYNE KEITH GARDNER It appearing from allegations in Plaintiff’s Bill, which is sworn to, that the defendant is a nonresident of the State of Tennessee, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon DWAYNE GARDNER. IT IS ORDERED that publication be made for four successive weeks in the Hamilton County Herald, a newspaper published in Hamilton their own books of client business, while devoting considerable time (which would otherwise be billable) to managing their practice group’s business plans and overseeing group performance. Group leaders often are not compensated for management duties, other than the normal process followed for setting all other partners’ compensation in the firm. The firm likely has a chief operating officer or firm administrator (usually a nonlawyer), a CEO-managing partner (and chair of the Management Committee), and a chairman of the board (usually a former CEO-managing partner) – none of whom may have goals that support what Speedboat operator convicted in hit-and-run By Pat Murphy The Daily Record Newswire With the unofficial start of summer, lawyers should start seeing clients trickle in with all sorts of legal troubles involving recreational boating. Last week, a California court gave a short primer on selfincrimination in the context of a speedboat operator charged with failing to render assistance after running down a young swimmer. The victim is the 11-yearold son of Jeff and Lynn McEntire. On Sept. 2, 2006, the McEntire family was enjoying an afternoon on Shaver Lake. Part of the fun involved Jeff skimming across the lake on a personal watercraft with his son in tow on a kneeboard. Around 4:30 p.m., a white and yellow motor boat sped out of a nearby cove and made a sharp turn towards Jeff on his watercraft. Despite attempts to get the operator’s attention, the boat never decreased speed and ran down Jeff’s son on his knee board. The boat continued on its way, leaving the severely injured boy in the water. Evidently, the boat’s propeller had struck the victim’s head. The boy’s skull was fractured, allowing brain matter to escape from his forehead. The victim survived, but with permanent brain damage and the loss of vision in one eye. For police, the task at hand was to find the operator of the white and yellow motorboat. Witnesses pointed to Roger Guzman, who happened to own a motor boat matching the description and who was out on the lake that day with a friend. Investigators who later examined Guzman’s boat discovered a bent propeller shaft and blade. The state charged Guzman under California Harbors and Navigation Code §656.2, which makes it a criminal offense when a boat operator involved in an accident fails to stop and render assistance, and fails to identify himself to the victim and law enforcement. County, Tennessee, notifying said non-resident that unless DWAYNE GARDNER answers and makes defense to said complaint in the offi ces of the Circuit Court Clerk of Hamilton County, Tennessee, within thirty (30) days after the fourth weekly publication of this order, the same will be taken as admitted by DWAYNE GARDNER and the case will be set for hearing ex parte or without DWAYNE GARDNER presence. This 18th day of May, 2011. PAULA T. THOMPSON, CIRCUIT COURT CLERK ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF RICHARD BRENT TEETER WILLARD BLDG #400 615 LINDSAY ST. CHATTANOOGA, TN 37403 HCH4T-5/27,6/3,6/10,6/17/11 NON-RESIDENT NOTICE STATE OF TENNESSEE, COUNTY OF HAMILTON DOUGLAS EDWARD JR. PARIS VS DOCKET NO. 11D945 TETEISHA SHANTEL PARIS It appearing from allegations in Plaintiff’s Bill, which is sworn to, that the defendant is a nonresident of the State of Tennessee, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon TETEISHA PARIS. IT IS ORDERED that publication be made for four successive weeks in the Hamilton County Herald, a newspaper published in Hamilton County, Tennessee, notifying said non-resident that unless TETEISHA PARIS answers and makes defense to said complaint in the offi ces of the Circuit Court Clerk of Hamilton County, Tennessee, within thirty (30) days after the fourth weekly publication of this order, the same will be taken as admitted by TETEISHA PARIS and the case will be set for hearing ex parte or without TETEISHA PARIS presence. This 10th day of May, 2011. PAULA T. THOMPSON, CIRCUIT COURT CLERK ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF RICHARD BRENT TEETER WILLARD BLDG #400 615 LINDSAY ST CHATTANOOGA, TN 37403 HCH4T-5/20,5/27,6/3,6/10/11 NON-RESIDENT NOTICE STATE OF TENNESSEE, COUNTY OF HAMILTON KIMBERLY QUALLS KNIGHT VS DOCKET NO. 11D964 JAMES TYRONE SR. KNIGHT It appearing from allegations in Plaintiff’s Bill, the practice group leader wants to accomplish. That is the blueprint for a thankless job and why practice group leaders should have their own version of an engagement agreement before assuming their duties. The agreement should consist of a statement of responsibilities, equivalent to a job description. The responsibilities should list what the practice group leader must do in order to reach the necessary measurements for success. Only an explicit description will foster the necessary communication and accountability. The leader’s base level of compensation and extent to which he is expected to maintain a personal book of business A jury convicted Guzman on this count, as well as counts charging reckless operation and excessive speed. On appeal, Guzman argued that his right against self-incrimination was violated when the trial judge instructed the jury he was required under state law to identify himself to law enforcement officers as the operator of the motorboat that had struck the boy. The California Court of Appeal on Friday clarified that Harbors and Navigation Code §656.2 is analogous to the state’s Motor Vehicle Code requirement that drivers render aid and identify themselves whenever they are involved in which is sworn to, that the defendant is a nonresident of the State of Tennessee, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon JAMES KNIGHT SR.. IT IS ORDERED that publication be made for four successive weeks in the Hamilton County Herald, a newspaper published in Hamilton County, Tennessee, notifying said non-resident that unless JAMES KNIGHT SR. answers and makes defense to said complaint in the offi ces of the Circuit Court Clerk of Hamilton County, Tennessee, within thirty (30) days after the fourth weekly publication of this order, the same will be taken as admitted by JAMES KNIGHT SR. and the case will be set for hearing ex parte or without JAMES KNIGHT SR. presence. This 11th day of May, 2011. PAULA T. THOMPSON, CIRCUIT COURT CLERK ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF REBECCA GARREN PARKER 5751 UPTAIN RD., STE. 508 CHATTANOOGA, TN 37411 HCH4T-5/20,5/27,6/3,6/10/11 NON-RESIDENT NOTICE STATE OF TENNESSEE, COUNTY OF HAMILTON FLORIDALMA MORALES MORALES VS DOCKET NO. 11D949 MERI HERNANDEZ PEREZ It appearing from allegations in Plaintiff’s Bill, which is sworn to, that the defendant is a nonresident of the State of Tennessee, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon MERI PEREZ. IT IS ORDERED that publication be made for four successive weeks in the Hamilton County Herald, a newspaper published in Hamilton County, Tennessee, notifying said non-resident that unless MERI PEREZ answers and makes defense to said complaint in the offi ces of the Circuit Court Clerk of Hamilton County, Tennessee, within thirty (30) days after the fourth weekly publication of this order, the same will be taken as admitted by MERI PEREZ and the case will be set for hearing ex parte or without MERI PEREZ presence. This 10th day of May, 2011. PAULA T. THOMPSON, CIRCUIT COURT CLERK ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF JUSTIN G. WOODWARD 3115 BRAINERD RD., #A CHATTANOOGA, TN 37411 HCH4T-5/20,5/27,6/3,6/10/11 ❖ should be precisely defined. Finally, there should be definite parameters for how often and with whom in senior management the group leader can meet to assess progress and discuss concerns. Such an agreement is just a starting point. Continuing dialogue and evaluation of practice group leaders is essential for reinforcement, modification or expansion of responsibilities as the firm’s circumstances evolve. Firm and practice group leadership are subject to the same need to keep the communication process open, candid and frequent. Firm and group management must be in concert, and all members must buy in for the practice group to be truly effective. ❖ an automobile accident. In this respect, the watercraft hit-and-run and the motor vehicle hit-and-run are analogous in that the crime is not the accident itself but the conduct that follows the accident. The court concluded that “Guzman’s Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by §656.2 because the information required to be reported, including that one is the operator of the vessel involved in the accident, is regulatory in nature and does not give rise to any criminal liability. Criminal liability arises from failure to comply with the reporting requirements.” (California v. Guzman) ❖
HAMILTON COUNTY HERALD www.hamiltoncountyherald.com Friday, June 10, 2011 11 Commentary: Immigration reform requires courage, not rhetoric By The Daily Record Newswire Architects of the U.S. Constitution took care to make alterations difficult. Amendment of the Constitution may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a special convention petitioned by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Any proposed amendment must then be ratified either by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by threefourths of special state conventions, as directed by Congress. Over the life of the Constitution, some 5,000 amendments have been introduced in Congress; 33 have been formally proposed for ratification; and only 27 were ratified. The average time for ratification has been two-and-a-half years. This burdensome amendment procedure should discourage tinkering with the Constitution on the whim or passion of the moment. And it should reserve any consideration of amendment for serious discussion rather than political posturing. But it is political posturing that marks this year’s proposals to alter the Fourteenth Amendment for the purpose of eliminating its grant of citizenship to those born in the United States. The so-called Citizenship Clause, adopted in 1868, guaranteed citizenship for the children of freed slaves. It is purposefully simple: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Unlike other Constitutional amendments, it is subject to little interpretation. But according to a growing number of lawmakers, either it does not mean what it says or it has outlived its usefulness. By Kimberly Atkins The Daily Record Newswire Lawyers who litigate employment benefits cases were waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to answer one important question: whether beneficiaries claiming they were misled by a summary plan description must prove detrimental reliance in an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. But in a move that seemed to surprise attorneys representing both beneficiaries and plan administrators, the Court instead made a number of holdings regarding both the administration and litigation of employment benefits, causing both sides to claim a partial victory, and just about everyone to express at least a bit of confusion. “This is one of those badfacts-make-bad-law cases, because the underlying case is so complicated that [the Court] wasn’t able to decide a simple issue” like detrimental reliance, said Stephen Rosenberg, a partner at the McCormack Firm in Boston, where he heads the firm’s ERISA practice group. In CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, the Court unanimously held that courts cannot, as the district court did in this case, reform a benefits plan under §502(a)(1) (B) of ERISA to comply with the more beneficial terms of a summary plan description (SPD). (Justice Sonia Sotomayor took no Earlier this year, Senators Rand Paul and David Vitter introduced a legislative “resolution” that would deny birthright citizenship to anyone without at least one parent who is a citizen or legal resident. In the House of Representatives, Steve King, joined by more than 60 co-sponsors, has proposed legislation to the same effect. Such resolutions, even if not explicitly stated, call for a constitutional amendment. But to some, the legislation – and similar proposals in a number of states – simply clarifies the meaning of the birthright Citizenship Clause. Advocates of the Paul- Vitter proposal argue that the Fourteenth Amendment – enacted for the purpose of prohibiting Southern states from restricting the citizenship rights of newly freed slaves – was never intended to grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. But in 1868, there were no “illegal aliens.” Immigration was unrestricted. Anyone arriving in the country could stay as a resident alien or, after a number of years, apply for naturalization. Nor was the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause meant somehow to exclude noncitizens. In a late nineteenthcentury opinion, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court explained that this clause was to except certain groups recognized in English common law: children of foreign diplomats, those born on foreign public ships, and those born of enemies of the U.S. during a hostile occupation. To these common law categories, the court added the then-recognized historical exclusion of the children of Indian tribe members, “not taxed.” Thus, the Supreme Court concluded, “the Fourteenth Amend- part in the decision.) The Court also held that the summary plan description, which here led employees to believe that they would get greater benefits that they received, was not part of the plan and could not itself be enforced by the court under that section of the Act. But in a surprise move, the Court also held by a 6-2 vote that plan beneficiaries could seek monetary relief under §502(a) (3), which provides for equitable relief for ERISA violations. A showing of detrimental reliance is not necessary to prevail on such a claim, just simple causation, the Court’s majority held. Almost immediately plaintiffs’ employment lawyers claimed victory, arguing that the expansion of the equitable relief section of the law gave beneficiaries a new avenue of relief for ERISA violations. “It’s a big win,” said San Francisco plaintiffs’ attorney Joseph A. Creitz, whose practice includes ERISA litigation. “The Court explicitly said that the equitable remedy is available [for beneficiaries] to recover out-of-pocket costs. That is a big change.” But lawyers defending benefit plans were not sure the victory was so one-sided. The Court’s ruling went against the plaintiffs in Amara, they pointed out. And the standards under the ERISA section governing equitable relief are so spongy, they said, that the ment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory … including all children here born of resident aliens.” The court has since assumed without comment that a child born to an undocumented alien is a citizen. In support of a constitutional amendment to remove the Citizenship Clause, Senator Lindsey Graham has opined that “birthright citizenship doesn’t make so much sense when you understand the world as it is.” The world to which Senator Graham alludes is one in which undocumented immigrants are said to enter the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth to “anchor babies,” whose citizenship status will eventually pave their parents’ path to citizenship. Although this belief enlivens much of the birthright citizenship debate, it is a misconception. The Pew Research Center found that fewer than nine percent of undocumented immigrants gave birth shortly after arrival. And there is scant evidence that any entered this country for that reason. Any child born into citizenship must wait until age 21 to apply for a parent’s legal residency. Generally, if the petition is granted, the parent must leave the United States and wait for 10 years before re-entry. It is difficult to believe that many undocumented immigrants have arrived here as part of a 31-year plan for citizenship. But, since there is no real chance of changing the Constitution to remove the Citizenship Clause, the issue makes for easy demagoguery. And that is a shame. When the rhetoric and sloganeering are done, lawmakers have not summoned the political courage to engage the necessity of plaintiffs in Amara and other cases probably have years of litigation ahead of them, and the issue of the proper equitable standards could wind up back before the Supreme Court. “[The justices] didn’t really deal with that. They just sent it back down,” said Rosenberg, who represents plan administrators in ERISA litigation. “Is the district court just going to reform the plan under the equitable clause? Is the 2nd Circuit going to uphold that? There is a big question as to whether this is good for the beneficiaries or not because of the [litigation] that lies ahead.” Also, the holding that summary descriptions are not a part of benefits plans is a win for employers and plan administrators, their lawyers say. “It does confirm what we always [believed], which is that the SPD is different from the plan instrument,” Rosenberg said. ‘Surcharge’ and other equitable remedies Before the decision in Amara, courts generally held that monetary relief was not available under the equitable remedies provision of ERISA. But the Court’s majority – reaching back to cite equitable principles applied to trusts cases, some more than a century old – found otherwise. In equity, the Court held, courts could offer several types of relief: injunctive relief, reformation of the plan, estoppel and an award serious immigration reform. Broadening the debate Since 9/11, in response to the many congressional mandates, the number of border guards has doubled. The budget for border security is now more than $17 billion. Writing recently in The Wall Street Journal, James W. Ziglar and Edward Alden estimate that the cost of funding now-existing congressional mandates regarding border enforcement would exceed $46 billion, a price not likely to be paid. Nonetheless, although illegal border crossings have diminished by 70 percent since 2000, neither Democrats nor Republicans are currently willing to consider immigration reform beyond calls for even tougher border security. But while the price of “zero tolerance” border security is ever increasing, Ziglar and Alden argue, it is unattainable. We must broaden the debate. President George W. Bush was willing to explore immigration reform and supported a proposal to grant illegal aliens temporary worker permits. In doing so, President Bush observed the obvious: We cannot round up and deport the entire undocumented population, now estimated at over 12 million, representing one of every 20 workers. Only last year, Senators Lindsay Graham and Charles Schumer proposed comprehensive immigration reform. Writing in The Washington Post, Graham and Schumer outlined a plan that included a tamper-proof ID system, a process to admit temporary workers, and implementation of a “tough but fair path to legalization for those already here.” The proposal had deserved support on both sides of the aisle. Earlier this year, UCLA professor Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda called a “surcharge.” “Equity courts possessed the power to provide relief in the form of monetary ‘compensation’ for a loss resulting from a trustee’s breach of duty, or to prevent the trustee’s unjust enrichment,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote. “Indeed, prior to the merger of law and equity this kind of monetary remedy against a trustee, sometimes called a ‘surcharge,’ was ‘exclusively equitable.’” That ruling represents a turnaround in Supreme Court ERISA precedent, which Paul W. Mollica, of counsel to Outten & Golden in Chicago, said has been increasingly adverse to beneficiaries seeking relief. There had been a series of “decisions from the Supreme Court that [gave] fewer and fewer remedies for ERISA violations that could result in any kind of relief,” said Mollica, who represents plaintiffs in class, collective and public interest litigation. “What the decision does is refashion the [liability] under ERISA where employees are misled because the summary of the plan. ... The Court said there can be relief against fiduciaries for such statements, and that relief can take the form of monetary relief. That is a significant change in the way the Court has ruled.” While he said that the holding that summary plan descriptions are not part of the plan is “a technical win” for employers and plan administrators, it’s a released a study showing that immigration reform providing a legal path to citizenship could generate an increase of more than $1.5 trillion in Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years. A mass deportation system, however, would cause a loss of $2.6 trillion over the same period. A report by the Cato Institute reached a remarkably similar conclusion, finding that a path to legalized citizenship would increase U.S. household incomes by $180 billion by 2019. And a University of Southern California study concludes that if California’s unauthorized workers were legal, they would have earned over $29 billion last year, causing a domino effect to stimulate the state’s sagging economy. The resultant growth would directly increase consumption spending by some $1.75 billion, which would generate additional indirect spending, which, in turn, would generate thousands of additional jobs. As Reconstruction-era lawmakers debated the effect of the proposed Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the sentiments expressed were not all those of liberty and equality. Some voiced hostility and fear that children of disfavored ethnic groups – Chinese and gypsy specifically – would be the beneficiaries. But in the end, by providing citizenship by birth, regardless of race or previous condition of servitude, the Reconstruction framers rose to embrace the notion of citizenship jus soli – by the right of the soil – and not according to bloodline. In the same spirit, politicians should now raise the immigration debate above cheap and pointless shots at the Fourteenth Amendment’s principles and purpose. ❖ Ruling by U.S. Supreme Court makes fuzzy ERISA law more puzzling limited one. While the summaries are sometimes created by someone other than the plan administrator – and in such cases the administrator would not be liable for their content – when the administrator does make misleading statements about a plan in a summary equitable relief, including monetary damages, is available. “That is a huge advance over where we were,” Mollica said. The result of Amara, Mollica said, will be “more wins for participants.” “I think it will lead lawyers who [litigate] ERISA to give more optimistic predictions to their clients,” Mollica said. “The fact of the matter is, [with] a lot of people who come into the office with ERISA claims, you are disappointing them. And now I feel more confident. Now we have claims that we can make that we didn’t have last week.” One thing is certain, Rosenberg said. Lawyers on both sides will try to use Amara, and all other ERISA precedent, the best way that they can. “ERISA can be manipulated,” Rosenberg said. “In most cases, ERISA litigators can manipulate it in a bunch of different directions. As a plaintiffs’ lawyer you know how to [use a case] to support your claim for relief, and as a defense lawyer you know how to say that those issues have not been resolved by the courts.” ❖
Page 1 and 2: Public Notices, page 15 Real estate
Page 3 and 4: HAMILTON COUNTY HERALD www.hamilton
Page 9: HAMILTON COUNTY HERALD www.hamilton

50 years ago... Inside... - Chattanooga Bar Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?