Monday, May 27, 2013

PARKE, J.



In the decision of Parke J in Egerton v. Brownlow (1853) 4 HL as 196, there is this passage which has been frequently quoted with approval by many judges including Sir Charles Newbold:

“It is the province of the statesman, and not the Lawyer, to discuss, and of the Legislature to determine, what is best for the public good and to provide by proper enactments. It is the province of the judge to expound the law only; the written from the decisions of our predecessors and of our existing courts, from textwriters of acknowledged authority, and upon the principles to be clearly deduced from them by sound reason and just inference; not to speculate upon what is best, in his opinion, for the advantage of the community”. 

Saturday, February 23, 2013

SIR WILLIAM CORDELL

SIR GILBERT GERARD

SIR THOMAS EGERTON

EDWARD BRUCE, LORD KINLOSS

SIR EDWARD PHELIPS

SIR JULIUS CAESAR

SIR DUDLEY DIGGES

SIR CHARLES CAESAR

THE LORD COLEPEPER

WILLIAM LENTHALL

SIR HARBOTTLE GRIMSTON

SIR JOHN CHURCHILL

SIR HENRY POWLE

SIR JOHN TREVOR

SIR JOSEPH JEKYLL

SIR JOHN VERNEY

WILLIAM FORTESCUE

SIR JOHN STRANGE

SIR THOMAS CLARKE

SIR THOMAS SEWELL

SIR LLOYD KENYON

SIR RICHARD ARDEN

SIR WILLIAM GRANT

SIR THOMAS PLUMER

THE LORD GIFFORD

SIR JOHN SINGLETON COPLEY

SIR JOHN LEACH

SIR CHARLES PEPYS, BT

THE LORD LANGDALE

THE LORD ROMILLY

SIR GEORGE JESSEL

THE LORD ESHER

SIR NATHANIEL LINDLEY

THE LORD ALVERSTONE

SIR ARCHIBALD LEVIN SMITH

SIR RICHARD COLLINS

SIR HERBERT COZENS-HARDY

SIR CHARLES SWINFEN EADY

THE LORD STERNDALE

SIR ERNEST POLLOCK

THE LORD WRIGHT

THE LORD GREENE

THE LORD EVERSHED

THE LORD DENNING

THE LORD DONALDSON OF LYMINGTON

THE LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL

THE LORD WOOLF

THE LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS

THE LORD CLARKE OF STONE-CUM-EBONY

THE LORD NEUBERGER OF ABBOTSBURY, M.R.

LORD DYSON, M.R

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

JAMES WILSON

JOHN JAY

WILLIAM CUSHING

JOHN BLAIR, JR.

JAMES IREDELL

THOMAS JOHNSON

WILLIAM PATERSON

JOHN RUTLEDGE

SAMUEL CHASE

OLIVER ELLSWORTH

BUSHROD WASHINGTON

ALFRED MOORE

JOHN MARSHALL

WILLIAM JOHNSON

HENRY BROCKHOLST LIVINGSTON

THOMAS TODD

Sunday, February 17, 2013

GABRIEL DUVALL

JOSEPH STORY

SMITH THOMPSON

ROBERT TRIMBLE

JOHN MCLEAN

HENRY BALDWIN

JAMES MOORE WAYNE

ROGER B. TANEY

PHILIP PENDLETON BARBOUR

JOHN CATRON

JOHN MCKINLEY

PETER VIVIAN DANIEL

SAMUEL NELSON

LEVI WOODBURY

ROBERT COOPER GRIER

BENJAMIN ROBBINS CURTIS

JOHN ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL

NATHAN CLIFFORD

NOAH HAYNES SWAYNE

SAMUEL FREEMAN MILLER

DAVID DAVIS

STEPHEN JOHNSON FIELD

SALMON P. CHASE

WILLIAM STRONG

JOSEPH P. BRADLEY

WARD HUNT

MORRISON WAITE

JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN

WILLIAM BURNHAM WOODS

STANLEY MATTHEWS

HORACE GRAY

SAMUEL BLATCHFORD

LUCIUS QUINTUS CINCINNATUS LAMAR

MELVILLE FULLER

DAVID JOSIAH BREWER

HENRY BILLINGS BROWN

GEORGE SHIRAS, JR.

HOWELL EDMUNDS JACKSON

EDWARD DOUGLASS WHITE

RUFUS WHEELER PECKHAM

JOSEPH MCKENNA

OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR.

WILLIAM R. DAY

WILLIAM HENRY MOODY

HORACE HARMON LURTON

CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

WILLIS VAN DEVANTER

JOSEPH RUCKER LAMAR

MAHLON PITNEY

JAMES CLARK MCREYNOLDS

LOUIS BRANDEIS

Saturday, February 16, 2013

JOHN HESSIN CLARKE

WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT

GEORGE SUTHERLAND

PIERCE BUTLER

EDWARD TERRY SANFORD

HARLAN F. STONE

CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

OWEN ROBERTS

BENJAMIN N. CARDOZO

HUGO BLACK

STANLEY FORMAN REED

FELIX FRANKFURTER

WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS

FRANK MURPHY

JAMES F. BYRNES

ROBERT H. JACKSON

WILEY BLOUNT RUTLEDGE

HAROLD HITZ BURTON

FRED M. VINSON

TOM C. CLARK

SHERMAN MINTON

EARL WARREN

JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN II

WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, Jr.

CHARLES EVANS WHITTAKER

POTTER STEWART

BYRON WHITE

ARTHUR GOLDBERG

ABE FORTAS

THURGOOD MARSHALL

WARREN E. BURGER

WARREN E. BURGER

HARRY BLACKMUN

LEWIS F. POWELL, Jr.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST

JOHN PAUL STEVENS

SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR

ANTONIN SCALIA

ANTHONY KENNEDY

DAVID SOUTER

CLARENCE THOMAS

RUTH BADER GINSBURG

STEPHEN BREYER

JOHN GLOVER ROBERTS, Jr.

Roberts wrote a dissent in Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton323 F.3d 1062, a case involving the protection of a rare California toad under the Endangered Species Act

SAMUEL ALITO


Notable opinions

Federalism
First Amendment
  • A majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001), holding that a public school district's anti-harassment policy was unconstitutionally overbroad and therefore violated First Amendment guarantees of free speech.
  • A majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1999), holding that a government-sponsored holiday display consisting solely of religious symbols was impermissible, but that a mixed display including both secular and religious symbols was permissible if balanced in a generally secular context.
  • A dissenting opinion in C. H. v. Oliva et al. (3d Cir. 2000), arguing that the removal and subsequent replacement in "a less conspicuous spot" of a kindergartener's religious themed poster was, at least potentially, a violation of his right to free expression.
Fourth and Eighth Amendments
  • A dissenting opinion in Doe v. Groody, arguing that qualified immunity should have protected police officers from a finding of having violated constitutional rights when they strip-searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrantthat authorized the search of a residence.
  • A unanimous opinion in Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002), holding that there was "no federal constitutional bar" to the "indefinite confinement" of a man imprisoned for civil contempt because he claimed he could not pay his $2.5 million debt to his wife.
Civil rights
  • A majority opinion in Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003), granting a writ of habeas corpus to a black state prisoner after state courts had refused to consider the testimony of a witness who stated that a juror had uttered derogatory remarks about blacks during an encounter in the courthouse after the conclusion of the trial.[18]
  • A dissenting opinion in Glass v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 34 F.3d 188 (3rd Cir. 1994), arguing that a lower court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence of past conduct that defendant had created a hostile and racist work environment.
  • A majority opinion in Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286 (3rd Cir. 1997), rejecting a female police officer's Equal Protection-based sexual harassment and retaliation claims against the city and certain police officials and rejecting her Title VII-based retaliation claim against the city, but allowing her Title VII-based sexual harassment claim against the city.

SONIA SOTOMAYOR

Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group (also in 1997),

Dow Jones v. Department of Justice (1995)

New York Times Co. v. Tasini (1997)

Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc


ELENA KAGAN