PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER 53 Ill.App.2d 299, 202 N.E.2d 841 (1964)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re Richard A. ALCORN and Steven Feola Supreme Court of Arizona, 202 Ariz. 62, 41 P.3d 600.
Advertisements

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re Richard A. ALCORN and Steven Feola Supreme Court of Arizona, 202 Ariz. 62, 41 P.3d 600.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re FROST Supreme Court of New Jersey, 171 N.J. 308, 793 A.2d 699 (2002) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In the Matter of Stanley R. JUHNKE Kansas Supreme Court, 273 Kan. 162, 41 P.3d 855 (2002)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. U.S. v. JIMENEZ RECIO 537 U.S. 270 (2003) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. U.S. v. Willard JOHNSON U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 327 F.3d 554 (2003) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. BUTLER 19 Ohio St.2d 55, 249 N.E.2d 818 (1969) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. DECK v. MISSOURI 125 S.Ct (2005) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. POHLE v. CHEATHAM Court of Appeals of Indiana, 724 N.E.2d 655 (2000) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. DLUGASH 41 N.Y.2d 725, 363 N.E.2d 1155 (N.Y. 1977) Case Brief.
Participants in a Criminal Trial. Principles Canada’s criminal justice system has two fundamental principles: an accused person is innocent until proven.
Litigation and Alternatives for Settling Civil Disputes CHAPTER FIVE.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BLANTON v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 489 U.S. 538 (1989) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. COLBY v. CARNEY HOSPITAL 356 Mass. 527, 254 N.E.2d 407 (1969) Case Brief.
TRIAL INFORMATION Steps, vocabulary.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. GRIFFIN v. CALIFORNIA 380 U.S. 609 (1965) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BROWN v. SOUTHLAND 620 F.Supp (E.D.Mo. 1985) Case Brief.
Mr. Valanzano Business Law. Dispute Resolution Litigate – ________________________________________________ In some cases, people decided too quickly to.
© 2005 by Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.1 CALIFORNIA CIVIL LITIGATION TRIAL PROCEDURES.
STEPS IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL. 1. OPENING STATEMENTS PROSECUTION ALWAYS GOES FIRST DEFENSE CAN DELAY UNTIL THEY BEGIN THEIR CASE. WHY? INTRODUCTION THIS IS.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. GOGGIN v. NEW STATE BALLROOM 355 Mass. 718, 247 N.E.2d 350 (1969) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. Pamela L. PETERS Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 263 Wis.2d 475, 665 N.W.2d 171 (2003)
Chapter Seventeen The Trial. Introduction to Law, 4 th Edition Hames and Ekern © 2010 Pearson Higher Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ All Rights.
Chapter 4 Resolving Disputes: Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Options Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE FARM v. CAMPBELL 538 U.S. 408 (2003) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. LOWE v. QUINN 27 N.Y.2d 397, 267 N.E.2d (N.Y. 1971) Case Brief.
© 2005 by Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.1 CALIFORNIA CIVIL LITIGATION TRIAL-SETTING PROCEDURES.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL 58 N.Y.2d 368, 448 N.E.2d 121 (1983) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. STAFFORD 223 Kan. 62, 573 P.2d 970 (Kan. 1977) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. UNITED STATES v. JEWELL 532 F.2d 697 (2d Cir. 1976) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. GRAY Juvenile Court of Ohio, Cuyahoga County. 145 N.E.2d 162 (1957) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. NEWMAN v. SUMMY CO. 133 F.2d 465 (2d Cir. 1943) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BUSBY v. STATE 894 So.2d 88 (Fla. 2004) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. WILLIAMS Supreme Court of Iowa 695 N.W.2d 23 (2005) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STUMP v. SPARKMAN 435 U.S. 349 (1978) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OREGON STATE BAR v. SMITH 149 Or.App. 171, 942 P.2d 793 (1997) Case Brief.
© 2006 Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ, All Rights Reserved.Hames/Ekern: Introduction to Law, 3 rd edition Chapter Seventeen The Trial.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. FINE v. DELALANDE, INC. 545 F.Supp. 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. RIEMERS v. GRAND FORKS HERALD 688 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 2004) Case Brief.
Criminal Justice Process: The Investigation
MORISSETTE v. UNITED STATES 342 U.S. 246 (1952)
Paper Preparation class
Mock Trials Court Systems and Practices.
Criminal Law ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS Why does conflict develop? How can governments ensure citizens are treated fairly?
SALTZMAN v. AHERN 306 So.2d 537 (Fla.App. 1975)
STATE v. WINDER 348 N.Y.S.2d 270 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1973)
Pretrial Conference After discovery, a pretrial hearing is held to clarify the issues, consider a settlement, and set rules for trial Once the trial court.
Chapter 4 Resolving Disputes: Litigation and Alternative Dispute
Courtroom Participants
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
MARTIN v. MARCIANO 871 A.2d 911 (R.I. 2005)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
The Participants.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
Legal Basics.
Types of Law Reasons for Law
CHAPTER 3 Court Systems 3-1 Forms of Dispute Resolution
CAMPBELL SOUP CO. v. WENTZ 172 F.2d 80 (3d Cir. 1948)
Chapter 6 Issue Identification
Steps in a Trial.
BROWN v. BROWN 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. DCA 1974)
STATE v. KINGMAN 463 P.2d 638 (Wash. 1970)
Copyright 2006 Thomson Delmar Learning.
NORRIS v. TOWN OF WHEATLAND 613 N.Y.S.2d 817 (S.Ct. Monroe Cty. 1994)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
ARENA LAND & INV. CO., INC. v. PETTY 69 F.3d 547 (10th Cir. 1995)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
Chapter 14 External Memorandum
Business Law Final Exam
Chapter 4 Case Law and Case Briefing
Presentation transcript:

PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER 53 Ill.App.2d 299, 202 N.E.2d 841 (1964) Case Brief Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER PURPOSE: Alexander illustrates the general principle that nonattorneys may not represent clients before the court while noting that rigid adherence to the rule may achieve unjust and impractical results. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER CAUSE OF ACTION: Contempt of Court. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER FACTS: When a jury could not reach a verdict in a case, the court ordered the attorneys to write a motion for mistrial. Defendant’s attorney was not present since he was involved in a trial elsewhere. A law clerk (Alexander) for defendant’s attorney was present and worked with the plaintiff’s attorney to write the order, after which the judge found Alexander in contempt of court. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER ISSUE: Whether a law clerk can work with opposing counsel in drafting a motion for a mistrial and asking for a continuance. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER HOLDING: Yes. (in appropriate circumstances) Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER REASONING: An order of court reciting the verdict of a jury or setting out its failure to agree on a verdict is the responsibility of the court and the court clerk is usually ordered by the court to enter an order showing the result of a jury’s deliberations. (continued) Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER REASONING (continued): The preparation of an order with the collaboration of opposing counsel was a ministerial act for the benefit of the court and a record of what had transpired and not the unauthorized practice of law and could not therefore support contempt of court. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Feedback: Privacy Policy Feedback
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
About project: SlidePlayer Terms of Service

© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc. All rights reserved.