120, ORIG. NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK
The motion of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation in the United States, et al. for leave to
file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of
New York Landmarks Conservancy, et al. for leave to file
a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of New
York Historical Society, et al. for leave to file a brief
as amici curiae is granted. The Exceptions to the Report
of the Special Master are set for oral argument in due
course. The motion of New York for leave to file a sur reply
brief is denied.
The motion of Ardith Cavallo for leave to file a
brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of
Association of Trial Lawyers of America for leave to
file a brief as amicus curiae is granted.
The motion of the Acting Solicitor General for
leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae
and for divided argument is granted.
The motion of Ohio, et al. for leave to participate
in oral argument as amici curiae is denied.
The motion of Acting Solicitor General for leave to
participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for
divided argument is granted.
The motion of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation for
leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted.
The motion of International Association of Chiefs
of Police, Inc. for leave to file a brief as amicus
curiae is granted.
The motion of the Acting Solicitor General to
dispense with printing the joint appendix is granted.
The motion of respondent Joseph W. Cotchett, et al.
for divided argument is denied.
In this case probable jurisdiction is noted. The
brief of appellant is to be filed with the Clerk and
served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m.,
Thursday,
to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing
counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, December 15, 1997.
A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and
served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m.,
Monday, January 5, 1998. Rule 29.2 does not apply.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted
limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. The
brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and
served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m.,
Thursday, November 13, 1997. The brief of respondent is
to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing
counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, December 15, 1997.
A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and
served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m.,
Monday, January 5, 1998. Rule 29.2 does not apply.
The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of
certiorari is granted limited to Questions 1, 2 and 4
presented by the petition. The brief of petitioner is to
be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel
on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, November 13, 1997. The
brief of respondent is to be filed with the Clerk and
served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m.,
Monday, December 15, 1997. A reply brief, if any, is to
be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel
on or before 3 p.m., Monday, January 5, 1998. Rule 29.2
does not apply.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
In addition to the questions presented by the petition,
the parties are requested to brief and argue the
following question: "Whether 17 U.S.C. Section 504(c)
permits or requires a jury trial in actions for
statutory damages for copyright infringement." The brief
of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and served
upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday,
November 13, 1997. The brief of respondent is to be
filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on
or before 3 p.m., Monday, December 15, 1997. A reply
brief, if any, is to filed with the Clerk and served
upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday,
January 5, 1998. Rule 29.2 does not apply.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
The brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk
and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m.,
Thursday, November 13, 1997. The brief of respondents is
to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing
counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, December 15, 1997.
A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and
served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m.,
Monday, January 5, 1998. Rule 29.2 does not apply.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
The brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk
and served upon opposing counsel on or before Thursday,
November 13, 1997. The brief of respondents is to be
filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on
or before 3 p.m., Monday, December 15, 1997. A reply
brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served
upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday,
January 5, 1998. Rule 29.2 does not apply.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
The brief of petitioners is to be filed with the Clerk
and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m.,
Thursday, November 13, 1997. The brief of respondents is
to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing
counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, December 15, 1997.
A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and
served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m.,
Monday, January 5, 1998. Rule 29.2 does not apply.
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis is granted. The petition for writ of
certiorari is granted. The brief of petitioner is
to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing
counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, November 13,
1997. The brief of respondent is to be filed with the
Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before
3 p.m., Monday, December 15, 1997. A reply brief, if
any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon
opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, January 5,
1998. Rule 29.2 does not apply.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
The brief of petitioners is to be filed with the Clerk
and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m.,
Thursday, November 13, 1997. The brief of respondent is
to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing
counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, December 15, 1997.
A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and
served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m.,
Monday, January 5, 1998. Rule 29.2 does not apply.
Thomas D. Morath, of New York, New York, having
been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by
order of June 9, 1997; and a rule having been issued and
served upon him requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response
having expired;
It is ordered that Thomas D. Morath is disbarred
from the practice of law in this Court.
Raymond D. Kirk, of Lexington, Kentucky, having
been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by
order of June 9, 1997; and a rule having been issued
requiring him to show cause why he should not be
disbarred;
It is ordered that Raymond D. Kirk is disbarred
from the practice of law in this Court.
Brenda Powers Barnes, of Santa Monica, California,
having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of
this Court, it is ordered that her name be stricken from
the roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law
before this Court. The Rule to Show Cause, issued on
June 23, 1997, is discharged.
Charles Robert Franzen, of Houston, Texas, having
been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by
order of August 4, 1997; and a rule having been issued
and served upon him requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response
having expired;
It is ordered that Charles Robert Franzen is
disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Kenneth Ray Barron, of Tyler, Texas, having been
suspended from the practice of law in this Court by
order of August 4, 1997; and a rule having been issued
and served upon him requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response
having expired;
It is ordered that Kenneth Ray Barron is disbarred
from the practice of law in this Court.
Vincent J. Piccirilli, of Cranston, Rhode Island,
having been suspended from the practice of law in this
Court by order of August 4, 1997; and a rule having been
issued and served upon him requiring him to show cause
why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a
response having expired;
It is ordered that Vincent J. Piccirilli is
disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Frank Harvey Newell, III, of Towson, Maryland,
having been suspended from the practice of law in this
Court by order of August 4, 1997; and a rule having been
issued and served upon him requiring him to show cause
why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a
response having expired;
It is ordered that Frank Harvey Newell, III, is
disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Thomas R. Dyson, Jr., of Chevy Chase, Maryland,
having been suspended from the practice of law in this
Court by order of August 4, 1997; and a rule having been
issued and served upon him requiring him to show cause
why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a
response having expired;
It is ordered that Thomas R. Dyson, Jr., is
disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Stephen Apollo, of Hackensack, New Jersey, having
been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by
order of August 4, 1997; and a rule having been issued
requiring him to show cause why he should not be
disbarred;
It is ordered that Stephen Apollo is disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
A. Thomas Beckman, of Lutherville, Maryland, having
been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by
order of August 4, 1997; and a rule having been issued
and served upon him requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response
having expired;
It is ordered that A. Thomas Beckman is disbarred
from the practice of law in this Court.
Joseph Anthony Saranello, of Houston, Texas, is
suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a
rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
Ronald Bart Gilbert, of Miami, Florida, is
suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a
rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
Theodore Joseph Segal, of Phoenix, Arizona, is
suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a
rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
Harrison B. Steward, III, of Orlando, Florida, is
suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a
rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
Lawrence Stanley Tuccori, of Fresno, California, is
suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a
rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
James Herman Davis, of Los Angeles, California, is
suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a
rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
Charles Kadish, of Buffalo Grove, Illinois, is
suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a
rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
Andrew D. Jackson, of Whiting, Indiana, is
suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a
rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
Robert C. Wolhar, Jr., of Georgetown, Delaware, is
suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a
rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
Robert Thomas Gilleran, of Los Angeles, California,
is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and
a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
Neal Yarborough Pickett, of Houston, Texas, is
suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a
rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
Lyn H. Marcus, of Los Angeles, California, is
suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a
rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
Nicholas Smith, of Plymouth, Michigan, is suspended
from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will
issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show
cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice
of law in this Court.
Lawrence R. Greene, of Detroit, Michigan, is
suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a
rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
Kenneth W. Thornton, Jr., of Georgetown, South
Carolina, is suspended from the practice of law in this
Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring him to show cause why he should not be
disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Robert Patrick Fisher, of Scotts Valley,
California, is suspended from the practice of law in
this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40
days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be
disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Richard James Hopewell, of Sioux Falls, South
Dakota, is suspended from the practice of law in this
Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring him to show cause why he should not be
disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.