In Re: Kendall
| Docket Number | 11-4471 |
| Decision Date | 03 April 2013 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
26 cases
-
Lafferty v. Jones
... ... See id., at 1072–73, 111 S. Ct. 2720 n.5 (noting that rule being interpreted did not apply to nonattorneys or attorneys outside of pending case). Courts after Gentile have continued to apply clear and present danger to extrajudicial speech in certain circumstances. See, e.g., In re Kendall , 712 F.3d 814, 826 (3d Cir. 2013) (applying clear and present danger when analyzing whether judge was improperly held in criminal contempt for speech contained in judicial opinion); Standing Committee on Discipline v. Yagman , 55 F.3d 1430, 1443 (9th Cir. 1995) (applying clear and present ... ...
-
United States ex rel. Nissman v. Southland Gaming of the Virgin Islands, Inc.
... ... Bluebeard's Castle, Inc. , 392 Fed.Appx. 965, 971 (3d Cir.2010) (citing 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(d) ). "The [A]ppellate [D]ivision of the District Court will cease existence when the last case pending is decided." Kendall v. Russell , 572 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir.2009) (quoting Edwards v. HOVENSA, LLC , 497 F.3d 355, 359 n. 2 (3d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 21 Prior to 2012, the Third Circuit had certiorari jurisdiction under 48 U.S.C. § 1613 to review final decisions of the Virgin Islands ... ...
-
United Indus. ex rel. Bason v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands
... ... On December 28, 2012, the President signed H.R. 6116, “a bill that would eliminate our certiorari jurisdiction over final decisions of the Virgin Islands Supreme Court and replace it with direct review by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Kendall v. Daily News Publ'g Co., 716 F.3d 82, 86 (3d Cir.2013) (citation omitted) (“ Kendall I ”). We conclude that we retain certiorari jurisdiction over proceedings that were filed in the Virgin Islands courts before the date of enactment of H.R. 6116. Although we thereby still possess certiorari ... ...
-
Brown v. Tucci
... ... Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 675, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994) (plurality opinion). That is because the government “gains additional authority to regulate speech” when it “acts in a capacity that goes beyond merely being sovereign.” In re Kendall, 712 F.3d 814, 825 (3d Cir.2013). In order to enjoy such latitude, however, a government must truly act “as an employer.” Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731. In Connick, the Supreme Court remarked that “an employee's false criticism of his employer on grounds not of public concern ... ...
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
EVALUATING JUDICIAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IN THE CURRENT POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CLIMATE: THE NEED TO STRENGTHEN IMPROPRIETY STANDARDS AND REMOVAL REMEDIES TO INCLUDE PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY HARM.
...At present, this doctrine has not been applied to judicial speech. (121) Moreover, there are other safeguards to judicial speech. In In re Kendall, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that unless a trial judge's statements constituted an immediate danger to the administration of......