RE: Cert Grant in Summum
Do you have the cite for McConnell's dissent handy? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:40 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Cert Grant in Summum The Supreme Court today granted cert in an unusual Ten Commandments case, Summum v. Pleasant Grove City. The case was brought by a religious organization that wanted to put up its own religious monument in a city park, given that there was already a Ten Commandments display there. The Tenth Circuit found for the plaintiffs, agreeing with them that the park was a traditional public forum from which the plaintiffs could only be excluded upon the showing of a compelling interest. The panel's decision seems pretty dubious - I imagine the Supreme Court will reverse, with a logic along the lines of Judge McConnell's dissent from denial of rehearing en banc. Best, Chris Christopher C. Lund Assistant Professor of Law Mississippi College School of Law 151 E. Griffith St. Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 925-7141 (office) (601) 925-7113 (fax) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Cert Grant in Summum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Mon Mar 31 16:39:52 2008 Subject: Cert Grant in Summum The Supreme Court today granted cert in an unusual Ten Commandments case, Summum v. Pleasant Grove City. The case was brought by a religious organization that wanted to put up its own religious monument in a city park, given that there was already a Ten Commandments display there. The Tenth Circuit found for the plaintiffs, agreeing with them that the park was a traditional public forum from which the plaintiffs could only be excluded upon the showing of a compelling interest. The panel's decision seems pretty dubious - I imagine the Supreme Court will reverse, with a logic along the lines of Judge McConnell's dissent from denial of rehearing en banc. Best, Chris Christopher C. Lund Assistant Professor of Law Mississippi College School of Law 151 E. Griffith St. Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 925-7141 (office) (601) 925-7113 (fax) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Cert Grant in Summum
Opinion and all the cert.-stage papers available here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-orders-25/#more-6913 -- Original message -- From: Brownstein, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you have the cite for McConnell's dissent handy? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:40 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Cert Grant in Summum The Supreme Court today granted cert in an unusual Ten Commandments case, Summum v. Pleasant Grove City. The case was brought by a religious organization that wanted to put up its own religious monument in a city park, given that there was already a Ten Commandments display there. The Tenth Circuit found for the plaintiffs, agreeing with them that the park was a traditional public forum from which the plaintiffs could only be excluded upon the showing of a compelling interest. The panel's decision seems pretty dubious - I imagine the Supreme Court will reverse, with a logic along the lines of Judge McConnell's dissent from denial of rehearing en banc. Best, Chris Christopher C. Lund Assistant Professor of Law Mississippi College School of Law 151 E. Griffith St. Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 925-7141 (office) (601) 925-7113 (fax) ---BeginMessage--- Do you have the cite for McConnell's dissent handy? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:40 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Cert Grant in Summum The Supreme Court today granted cert in an unusual Ten Commandments case, Summum v. Pleasant Grove City. The case was brought by a religious organization that wanted to put up its own religious monument in a city park, given that there was already a Ten Commandments display there. The Tenth Circuit found for the plaintiffs, agreeing with them that the park was a traditional public forum from which the plaintiffs could only be excluded upon the showing of a compelling interest. The panel's decision seems pretty dubious - I imagine the Supreme Court will reverse, with a logic along the lines of Judge McConnell's dissent from denial of rehearing en banc. Best, Chris Christopher C. Lund Assistant Professor of Law Mississippi College School of Law 151 E. Griffith St. Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 925-7141 (office) (601) 925-7113 (fax) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.---End Message--- ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Cert Grant in Summum
The dissents (there are a couple) are all at 499 F.3d 1070... Christopher C. Lund Assistant Professor of Law Mississippi College School of Law 151 E. Griffith St. Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 925-7141 (office) (601) 925-7113 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/31/2008 3:58 PM Do you have the cite for McConnells dissent handy? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:40 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Cert Grant in Summum The Supreme Court today granted cert in an unusual Ten Commandments case, Summum v. Pleasant Grove City. The case was brought by a religious organization that wanted to put up its own religious monument in a city park, given that there was already a Ten Commandments display there. The Tenth Circuit found for the plaintiffs, agreeing with them that the park was a traditional public forum from which the plaintiffs could only be excluded upon the showing of a compelling interest. The panel's decision seems pretty dubious - I imagine the Supreme Court will reverse, with a logic along the lines of Judge McConnell's dissent from denial of rehearing en banc. Best, Chris Christopher C. Lund Assistant Professor of Law Mississippi College School of Law 151 E. Griffith St. Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 925-7141 (office) (601) 925-7113 (fax) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Partial dismissal in ACSI suit vs the UC system
UC press release here: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/courtdecisionsummary _033108.pdf Ruling here: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/msjruling_033108.pdf Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
