University of Pennsylvania Finding Aids

Navigation Aids

University of Pennsylvania Finding Aids
Search Finding Aids
 

Filters

hide/display content

Currently Used Filters

Remove
filtered Subject: Topic: Employees--Dismissal of
Sort Results By:
Narrow Results By:
view more...
view more...
view more...

Main Content

« First • Previous • Next • Last »
Results: *RSS*
Showing hits 1 - 2 out of 2  
Biddle Law Library: National Bankruptcy Archives [Contact Us]
1984-1994
Creator:
Kronish, Lieb, Weiner, and Hellman LLP
Extent: 4.5 linear feet (about 930 items)
On July 11, 1984, William Foley, Legislative Affairs Officer of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts ("Administrative Office"), issued a memorandum stating that the Administrative Office would not pay bankruptcy judges because, in its opinion, Congress had acted unlawfully by awarding retroactive terms of office to the normally presidentially-appointed bankruptcy judges. In response, on July 13, 1984, four bankruptcy judges sued Foley and the Administrative Office for abuse of power. The case became commonly known as Lundin v. Foley. The law firm of Kronish, Lieb, Shainswit, Weiner and Hellman (later, Kronish, Lieb, Weiner and Hellman) represented the bankruptcy judges. Richard Lieb served as the primary attorney on the case. In 1988 the court issued a summary judgment on the grounds that the explicit reason for the suit (i.e. the refusal of Foley to pay the judges) had been resolved. However, when Foley issued his original memorandum, parties with an interest in other bankruptcy cases called for a dismissal of their cases or rulings on the grounds that the judges were not lawfully appointed. The bankruptcy judges in the original suit intervened in these cases on behalf of the presiding bankruptcy judges and, more importantly, the constituionality of the bankruptcy judge system as a whole. In each case, all of the motions were denied, thereby securing the bankruptcy judges a clear, unqualified victory. Following the court's decision, the judges sought reimbursement for its attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which allows for plaintiffs who win a case against the government to be compensated for court costs. The Administrative Office refused to reimburse the judges, arguing that the Equal Access to Justice Act only covers suits against the Executive Branch, an argument which was upheld by the courts in the original ruling. The judges appealed and in 1992, the court ruled in favor of them for Lundin v. Foley. However, the judges were denied their request to recover fees for the related cases. The collection, 1984-1994, includes correspondence, clippings, photocopies of cases compiled in the course of research, notes, court documents, and other materials regarding the cases for which Kronish, Lieb represented bankruptcy judges in their lawsuit against the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
title
Kronish, Lieb, Weiner, and Hellman LLP Bankruptcy Judges Lawsuit Files
creator
Kronish, Lieb, Weiner, and Hellman LLP
id
PU-L.NBA.027
repository
University of Pennsylvania Biddle Law Library
extent
4.5 linear feet (about 930 items)
inclusive date
1984-1994
bulk date
abstract/scope/contents
On July 11, 1984, William Foley, Legislative Affairs Officer of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts ("Administrative Office"), issued a memorandum stating that the Administrative Office would not pay bankruptcy judges because, in its opinion, Congress had acted unlawfully by awarding retroactive terms of office to the normally presidentially-appointed bankruptcy judges. In response, on July 13, 1984, four bankruptcy judges sued Foley and the Administrative Office for abuse of power. The case became commonly known as Lundin v. Foley. The law firm of Kronish, Lieb, Shainswit, Weiner and Hellman (later, Kronish, Lieb, Weiner and Hellman) represented the bankruptcy judges. Richard Lieb served as the primary attorney on the case. In 1988 the court issued a summary judgment on the grounds that the explicit reason for the suit (i.e. the refusal of Foley to pay the judges) had been resolved. However, when Foley issued his original memorandum, parties with an interest in other bankruptcy cases called for a dismissal of their cases or rulings on the grounds that the judges were not lawfully appointed. The bankruptcy judges in the original suit intervened in these cases on behalf of the presiding bankruptcy judges and, more importantly, the constituionality of the bankruptcy judge system as a whole. In each case, all of the motions were denied, thereby securing the bankruptcy judges a clear, unqualified victory. Following the court's decision, the judges sought reimbursement for its attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which allows for plaintiffs who win a case against the government to be compensated for court costs. The Administrative Office refused to reimburse the judges, arguing that the Equal Access to Justice Act only covers suits against the Executive Branch, an argument which was upheld by the courts in the original ruling. The judges appealed and in 1992, the court ruled in favor of them for Lundin v. Foley. However, the judges were denied their request to recover fees for the related cases. The collection, 1984-1994, includes correspondence, clippings, photocopies of cases compiled in the course of research, notes, court documents, and other materials regarding the cases for which Kronish, Lieb represented bankruptcy judges in their lawsuit against the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
date_facet
1980s 1990s
bulk_date_facet
language_facet
English
name_facet
Kronish, Lieb, Weiner, and Hellman LLP Lundin, Keith M. Norton, William L. Paine, George C., II United States. Administrative Office of the United States Courts
name_with_roles_facet
geographical_subject_facet
topical_subject_facet
genre_form_facet
Legal files
Biddle Law Library: American Law Institute Archives [Contact Us]
1973-2003
Creator:
American Law Institute
Extent: 16 linear feet
The American Law Institute (ALI) was founded in 1923 in response to a perceived uncertainty and complexity in American law. Former Penn Law Dean William Draper Lewis was the Institute's first director, running the organization's operations out of his campus office. The ALI was conceived as a representative gathering of the American Bar (including Judges, Lawyers, and Law Professors) for the stated mission "to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific legal work." The Third Restatement of the Law covered subjects including Foreign Relations Law and the Law Governing Lawyers. The collection, 1973-2003, includes drafts, comments, correspondence, and other materials related to the Third Restatement of the Law, which sought to improve and expand upon the first and second codification projects by the American Law Institute.
title
Restatement of the Law: Third Records
creator
American Law Institute
id
PU-L.ALI.04.003
repository
University of Pennsylvania Biddle Law Library
extent
16 linear feet
inclusive date
1973-2003
bulk date
abstract/scope/contents
The American Law Institute (ALI) was founded in 1923 in response to a perceived uncertainty and complexity in American law. Former Penn Law Dean William Draper Lewis was the Institute's first director, running the organization's operations out of his campus office. The ALI was conceived as a representative gathering of the American Bar (including Judges, Lawyers, and Law Professors) for the stated mission "to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific legal work." The Third Restatement of the Law covered subjects including Foreign Relations Law and the Law Governing Lawyers. The collection, 1973-2003, includes drafts, comments, correspondence, and other materials related to the Third Restatement of the Law, which sought to improve and expand upon the first and second codification projects by the American Law Institute.
date_facet
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
bulk_date_facet
language_facet
English
name_facet
American Law Institute
name_with_roles_facet
geographical_subject_facet
topical_subject_facet
genre_form_facet