Epstein Secrets

Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Fax: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: [email protected] Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mai . [email protected] Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane D

F. App'x 337, 346 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Here, the district court exceeded its equitable power when it ordered [defendant] to apologize.")). In Woodruff, the Ninth Circuit affirmed its prior holding that courts "are not commissioned to run around getting apologies" and reasoned that the law is not usually concerned wi

Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Fax: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: [email protected] Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mat . casserp-glaw.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane

F. App'x 337, 346 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Here, the district court exceeded its equitable power when it ordered [defendant] to apologize.")). In Woodruff, the Ninth Circuit affirmed its prior holding that courts "are not commissioned to run around getting apologies" and reasoned that the law is not usually concerned wi

Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Fax: E-mail: Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake Cit Utah 84112 Fax: Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 36 EFTA00208858 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHE

F. App'x 337, 346 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Here, the district court exceeded its equitable power when it ordered [defendant] to apologize.")). In Woodruff, the Ninth Circuit affirmed its prior holding that courts "are not commissioned to run around getting apologies" and reasoned that the law is not usually concerned wi

Procedure 2007 Reporter 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861 * Length: 59852 words Author: Paul G. Cassell* * Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law of the University of Utah, Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 2002-07. Thanks to Sara Sun Beale, Doug Beloof, Doug Berman, Russell Butler, Matt Cannon, Meg G

ght of the conference report on Rule 16, compelling disclosure of witness names before trial appears inconsistent with the federal rules. And even if the Ninth Circuit's approach was valid at the time Armstrong was decided, such an approach is no longer valid in light of the CVRA. Rule 57(b) only provides a basis for