Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2013-2014

During the 2013-2014 academic year–corresponding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2013–the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in 96% of the cases heard by the Court this Term, offered a variety of programs related to the Supreme Court, and further integrated the moot court program into the education of Georgetown Law students. A list of all SCI moot courts held in OT 2013–arranged by argument sitting and date of moot and including the name and affiliation of each advocate and the number of student observers–follows the narrative portion of this report

Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2010-2011

During the 2010-2011 academic year--corresponding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2010--the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in over 93% of the cases heard by the Court this Term; sponsored a range of programming related to the Supreme Court; and hosted delegations of lawyers and judges visiting from Britain, Rwanda, Kosovo, Korea, China, and Germany. A list of all SCI moot courts held in OT 2010, listed by sitting and date of moot and including the name and affiliation of each advocate and the number of student observers, follows the narrative portion of this report

Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2014-2015

During the 2014-2015 academic year-–corresponding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2014-–the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in 100% of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, offered a variety of programs related to the Supreme Court, and continued to integrate the moot court program into the education of Georgetown Law students. A list of all SCI moot courts held in OT 2014-–arranged by argument sitting and date of moot and including the name and affiliation of each advocate and the number of observers-–follows the narrative portion of this report

Opinion of the Judges of the Supreme Court relative to the right of a Husband to Vote on his Wife’s Real Estate [Given March 30, 1878].

The Rhode Island State Supreme Court issued this opinion in response to the question of “Can a husband, under the State constitution, Article II, Section 1, be entitled to vote by virtue of any right or interest which he may have as husband in the real estate of his wife, and if so, under what circumstances?” Rhode Island State law at the time required its citizens to own property of a certain value in order to vote. The point in question was can a husband use his wife’s property to qualify as a voter.https://digitalcommons.providence.edu/ri_history/1003/thumbnail.jp

Loye E. Martindale, Darwin W. Larson, Carol W. Clay Logan City Municipal Corporation; and the Municipal Council of Logan City v. Mayor Desmond L. Anderson, City Attorney J. Blaine Zollinger, City Auditor And Budget Director Duane A. Beck : Glenn T. Baird And Claude J. Burtenshaw\u27s Brief As Amicus Curiae

Appeal from District Court of Cache County, Utah Honorable Venoy Christofferse

The State of Utah v. Johnny A. Turner : Brief of Appellant

Appeal from the Seventh Judicial Disltrict Court in and for Carbon County, State of Utah, the Honorable Boyd Bunnell, Presiding. (Category 2)