Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SHAKMAN v. DEMOCRATIC ORGAN. OF COOK COUNTY

April 4, 1983

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN AND PAUL M. LURIE, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
THE DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF COOK COUNTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bua, District Judge.

JUDGMENT

The instant Judgment represents the implementation order with regard to the hiring aspect of the Shakman case. The case began in 1969 when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Marovitz, J., dismissed the complaint of the plaintiffs. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 310 F. Supp. 1398 (N.D.Ill. 1969). On appeal from the dismissal, the Seventh Circuit reversed. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 435 F.2d 267 (7th Cir. 1970). After the Supreme Court denied certiorari, 402 U.S. 909, 91 S.Ct. 1383, 28 L.Ed.2d 650 (1971), settlement negotiations began. On May 5, 1972, the Court approved and entered a Consent Decree relating to those employees already hired as government employees. In essence, the Decree purported to free the government employees from all coercion and employment discrimination based on political considerations.*fn1 See, Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 481 F. Supp. 1315, 1356 (N.D.Ill. 1979).*fn2

On September 24, 1979, this Court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 481 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D.Ill. 1979). The Court essentially found that in hiring persons for governmental employment, the defendants listed in Paragraph C below illegally conditioned, based, and affected the hiring of persons for government employment upon and because of their political sponsorship, affiliation and support. In so holding, the Court left the specific form of the remedy for another time. Numerous hearings have been held and voluminous memoranda have been considered concerning the form of relief as it is presented herein.

The Judgment is entered to provide relief for the violations of plaintiffs' rights as determined in the September 24, 1979 order and to prevent further such violations. The Court is authorized to enter such relief under its equity powers as recognized in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955). See also, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971).

As required by Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U.S. 284, 96 S.Ct. 1538, 47 L.Ed.2d 792 (1976), the nature of the relief contained herein has been tailored to fit the nature and extent of the violations which have been found. The Judgment goes no further than to attempt to eliminate political considerations in the hiring of government employees. It does not impose a civil service system nor does it necessitate that a merit system be utilized.

Therefore, it is hereby Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as follows:

A. Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties to this Judgment and of the subject matter of this action under Sections 1331 and 1343(3) of Title 28 of the United States Code.

B. Definitions. As used in this Judgment (1) the term "Government Employment" means any employment (whether full-time or part-time, permanent or temporary, and regardless of whether the employment is paid for by Federal funds) by or for the City of Chicago or any employment within the Northern District of Illinois by or for the County of Cook or any other nonfederal governmental officer or entity; (2) the terms "Governmental Employee" and "Employee" mean a person employed in Governmental Employment; (3) the term "Exempt Position" means a Governmental Employment job, which is determined to be exempt from the provisions of Paragraphs D and E of the Consent Judgments and Paragraphs D through M, inclusive, of this Judgment, all as provided in Paragraph N below; (4) the term "Consent Judgments" means the Judgments previously entered in this case as to defendants listed in Paragraph C below upon the consent of plaintiffs and various defendants on May 5, 1972, April 3, 1978, and June 27, 1980; and (5) the term "Defendant Public Employer" means each defendant listed in Paragraph C which is a governmental unit or who is a governmental officeholder (and the successors in office to those persons).

C. Persons Bound. The provisions of this Judgment apply to the following: (1) Defendants: CITY OF CHICAGO; JANE M. BYRNE, individually and as Mayor of the City of Chicago; FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF COOK COUNTY, Illinois; CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT; RICHARD J. ELROD, individually and as Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois; MORGAN M. FINLEY, individually and as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; EDWARD J. ROSEWELL, individually and as Treasurer of Cook County, Illinois; STANLEY J. KUSPER, JR., individually and as Clerk of Cook County, Illinois; THOMAS C. HYNES, individually and as Assessor of Cook County, Illinois; GEORGE W. DUNNE, individually, as President of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County, Illinois and as President of the Board of Commissioners of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois; DEMOCRATIC PARTY COUNTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE FOR COOK COUNTY and its members; EDWARD R. VRDOLYAK, individually and as Chairman of the Democratic Party County Central Committee for Cook County, Illinois; (2) their successors in each of those capacities; (3) the present and future officers, members, agents, servants, employees and attorneys of each of those Defendants and others named or referred to in this paragraph; and (4) all others in active concert or participation with Defendants or others named or referred to in this paragraph who receive actual notice of this Judgment, by personal service or otherwise.

D. Declaratory Relief. It is hereby declared that the conditioning, basing, or affecting of the hiring of Governmental Employees (other than for Exempt Positions) upon or because of any political reason or factor including, without limitation, any prospective employee's political affiliation, political support or activity, political financial contributions, promises of such political support, activity or financial contributions or such prospective employee's political sponsorship or recommendation is prohibited.

E. Injunction. Defendants and all others named or referred to in Paragraph C above are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly, in whole or in part:

    (1) conditioning, basing or knowingly
  prejudicing or affecting the hiring of any person
  as a Governmental Employee (other than for Exempt
  Positions), upon or because of any political
  reason or factor including, without limitation,
  any prospective employee's political affiliation,
  political support or activity, political
  financial contributions, promises of such
  political support, activity or financial
  contributions, or such prospective employee's
  political sponsorship or recommendation; or

F. Plan of Compliance. Each Defendant Public Employer shall, not later than 120 days from the date this Judgment becomes effective, file with the Court, with copies to all parties to this Judgment, a Plan of Compliance to implement this Judgment.

The Plan of Compliance shall set forth in detail a method or methods of hiring to be used for all Governmental Employment positions (other than Exempt Positions) with that employer. Each such method of hiring shall establish criteria for hiring which shall establish on an objective basis that the method complies with Paragraphs D and E above. The method or methods of hiring set forth in the Plan of Compliance shall be within the discretion of the Defendant Public Employer, as long as the method or methods comply with the requirements of this Judgment.

Each Plan of Compliance shall also provide for the instruction of persons having responsibility for hiring as to the requirements of this Judgment and the Plan of Compliance and shall provide for the monitoring of compliance with this Judgment and the Plan of Compliance.

Any party believing that the Plan of Compliance of any Defendant Public Employer is not in compliance with this Judgment, or is inadequate to ensure compliance with this Judgment may apply to the Court for further orders to enforce compliance, including directing changes in the Plan of Compliance. Within one year of the date this Judgment becomes effective, each Defendant Public Employer shall implement the Plan of Compliance as so filed and as it may be so changed.

A Plan of Compliance may contain provisions providing for the means by which hiring methods may be changed, consistent with this Judgment, and shall provide for appropriate notice to be given the parties of such proposed changes.

G. Notices of Job Availability. Each Defendant Public Employer, and all others named or referred to in Paragraph C above, are permanently enjoined from hiring any person for any Governmental Employment position (except Exempt Positions and except, as provided below, for emergency hiring) unless prior public notice of the opportunity to apply for and be hired for the job has been given. This requirement shall apply to hiring of persons after a date 60 days after this Judgment becomes effective.

During the period of ten years after this Judgment becomes effective, the method of giving notice shall be as provided by this paragraph, unless an alternative method is approved by the Court. The notice shall be given at least 14 days before the last date for which applications may be submitted for consideration for the job. The notice shall include a description of the nature of the job, the qualifications, the pay, and how and where to apply for the job. The notice shall be given in the following manner:

    (1) by prominently posting the notice for
  inspection by the general public at each place
  where persons may make application for
  Governmental Employment with that Defendant
  Public Employer. (A list of all such available
  job opportunities with the Defendant Public
  Employer shall similarly be posted. The list must
  be updated at least monthly. Copies of the list
  and of all such notices shall be provided free of
  charge to each person who requests a copy in
  person); and
    (2) by mailing copies of the list of available
  job opportunities to each person who shall have
  requested receiving such notices by mail.
  (Defendant Public Employers may provide in their
  Plan of Compliance for a charge to persons
  requesting notices by mail of a reasonable fee to
  cover postage costs.)

In lieu of the manner set forth in Subparagraphs G(1) and G(2), notice may be given in the manner required by statute as to any position which is to be filled by the highest ranking applicant on competitive examinations. A Plan of Compliance may make provision for establishing reasonable limits on the period during which a person shall be entitled to continue to receive by mail notices of job opportunities after having most recently requested the notice.

A Plan of Compliance may make reasonable provisions for hiring persons in exceptional, emergency situations without prior notice having been given as provided in this paragraph. Any such provision shall contain rigorous limitations on the number of persons who may be so hired in a year. The Plan of Compliance shall also provide for regular reports to the Court of instances in which such emergency hiring was made, setting forth the reasons why it was an emergency situation, including why it was not possible to have made arrangements by which the hiring could have been made upon prior notice.

H. Notice of List of Jobs. Each Defendant Public Employer shall cause to be published, at least once each calendar quarter for a period of ten years following the date this Judgment becomes effective, in the "help wanted" section of a Chicago daily newspaper having a circulation of greater than 200,000, a prominent notice of the existence and availability of the list described in Subparagraph G(1), stating where the list is available for public inspection, where copies may be obtained in person and how persons may receive copies of the list by mail.

I. Notice to Employees. Each Defendant Public Employer shall cause a copy of the Notice which is attached to this Judgment, together with a copy of this Judgment, to be delivered within 30 days of the date this Judgment becomes effective to each Governmental Employee of such Defendant.

J. Notice to Job Applicants. Each Defendant Public Employer is directed, for a period of ten years following the date this Judgment becomes effective, to cause copies of the Notice referred to in Paragraph I, together with a copy of this Judgment, to be delivered to each applicant for Governmental Employment with such Defendant Public Employee. The Notice shall be delivered to each applicant no later than the time the applicant is furnished a job application for the Governmental Employment position.

K. Posting of Judgment. A copy of this Judgment and a copy of the Notice referred to in Paragraph I shall be prominently posted at each place where persons may make applications for employment with each Defendant Public Employer. Copies of this Judgment and such notice shall remain so posted for a period of ten years following the date this Judgment becomes effective. A notice similarly posted shall state that copies of the notice referred to in Paragraph I and of this Judgment are available to any person who requests them.

L. Affidavits of Compliance. Each Defendant Public Employer shall cause to be filed with the Clerk of this Court within 45 days of the date this Judgment becomes effective an affidavit showing compliance with Paragraph I. Each Defendant Public Employer shall cause to be filed with the Clerk of this Court prior to the last day of each calendar quarter, beginning with the year in which this Judgment becomes effective and ending ten years after that year, an affidavit showing compliance with Paragraphs G, I, J and K for the period since the last date covered by the most recent affidavit. Such quarterly affidavits shall list the name and position of all persons hired since the most recent such affidavit by each such Defendant Public Employer. The affidavits shall also disclose the name and party position of every person, reasonably known to the Defendant Public Employer to be a political party official, member, employee or agent, who has directly or indirectly recommended or sponsored the Employee for Governmental Employment. Nothing in this paragraph shall require any person to make any inquiry as to any person's political affiliation.

N. Exempt Positions. Defendant Public Employers may, from time to time, apply to the Court for a determination that political party affiliation or activity are appropriate requirements for the effective performance of certain Governmental Employment positions and therefore that hiring for or discharge from such positions should be exempt from inquiry under this Judgment and the Consent Judgments. Prior to entry of an order of Court determining a position to be an Exempt Position, no position shall be exempt from this Judgment and no action with respect to any such position shall be exempt from inquiry under this Judgment, except as provided in Paragraph O of this Judgment.

O. Interim Exempt Positions. Each Governmental Employment Position which is listed or referred to in the List of Interim Exempt Positions, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of this Judgment, shall be treated as a position, the hiring for which is, during the period specified in this Paragraph O, exempt from the provisions of Paragraphs D through M of this Judgment. The period during which such positions with a Defendant Public Employer shall be so exempt is the period beginning on the date this Judgment becomes effective and ending when the Court enters its first order, pursuant to Paragraph N of this Judgment, determining which positions with that employer are to be Exempt Positions. That a position is listed or not listed as an interim Exempt Position shall have no bearing whatsoever on the determination of whether a position shall be determined to be or not to be an Exempt Position pursuant to Paragraph N of this Judgment or pursuant to Paragraph H of the Consent Judgments.

P. Consent Judgments. This Judgment is in addition to the Consent Judgments and is issued pursuant to Paragraph H of the Consent Judgments.

Q. Jurisdiction Retained. Jurisdiction is retained for the following purposes:

    (1) To enable the parties to this Judgment to
  apply to this Court for orders determining which
  Governmental Employment positions are Exempt
  Positions as provided in Paragraph N;
    (2) To enable the parties to this Judgment to
  apply to this Court at any time for such further
  orders and directions as may be necessary or
  appropriate for the construction or carrying out
  of the Consent Judgments and this Judgment, for
  the enforcement of compliance with the provisions
  contained in the Consent Judgments and this
  Judgment, and for remedy for the violation of any
  of those provisions. Application to enforce those
  provisions or to remedy any violation may be
  presented to this Court by any registered voter.
  Prior written notice of all such applications and
  other matters in this action shall be given to
  the named parties to this Judgment;
    (3) To enable the parties to this Judgment to
  apply at any time for modifications to the
  requirements of Paragraphs F through M of this
  Judgment, which modifications shall be warranted
  by good cause and consistent with or necessary
  for the implementation of Paragraphs D and E;
    (4) To determine whether provisions of this
  Judgment which by their terms may expire upon a
  term of years should be extended for a further
  period; and
    (5) To determine the amount of plaintiffs'
  costs and attorneys' fees. Defendants shall pay
  plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees if so
  determined by Court order.

R. Effectiveness. The Court expressly finds and determines, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that there is no just reason for delay. It directs that this Judgment now be entered and be effective upon its entry.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

LIST OF INTERIM EXEMPT POSITIONS

I.  The following are the interim Exempt Positions with
    defendant City of Chicago:
1.  Each elected official.
  2.  A private secretary for each elected
      official.
  3.  Members of boards and commissions whose
      appointment is subject to confirmation by the
      City Council.
  4.  Administrative assistants to the Mayor, and
      such employees of the Mayor's office as are
      appointed by the Mayor.
5.  Executive heads of City departments.
6.  Employees of the City Council.
  7.  Up to 250 additional employees to be selected
      in the discretion of the City.
II. The following are the interim Exempt Positions with
    defendant Chicago Park District:
  1.  The members of the Board of Commissioners and
      the General Superintendent.
  2.  A private secretary for each member of the
      Board of Commissioners and for the General
      Superintendent.
3.  Executive heads of the various departments.
  4.  Up to 20 additional employees to be selected
      in the discretion of the Chicago Park
      District.
III.  The following are the interim Exempt Positions under the
      jurisdiction of the defendant Cook County officers and
      the Forest Preserve District of Cook County:
1.  Each elected official.
  2.  A private secretary for each elected
      official.
  3.  Members of all boards and commissions whose
      appointment is subject to confirmation by the
      Board of Commissioners of Cook County (or the
      Forest Preserve District of Cook County) or
      whose appointment is provided for by statute.
  4.  Executive heads of departments with County
      officers or the Forest Preserve District.
  5.  Up to 125 additional employees to be selected
      in the discretion of the Board of
      Commissioners of Cook County.

Where, as provided in this list, a Defendant Public Employer may, in its discretion, designate certain positions among the interim Exempt Positions, the Employer must file the list of positions with the Court, with copies served on all parties, at least two weeks prior to the positions becoming interim Exempt Positions.

IMPORTANT NOTICE

TO: ALL EMPLOYEES OF ______ AND TO ALL APPLICANTS FOR JOBS WITH THAT GOVERNMENTAL OFFICE OR ENTITY:

On April 4, 1983, a Judgment was entered in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the case of Michael L. Shakman, et al. v. The Democratic Organization of Cook County, etc., No. 69 C 2145.

The Judgment prohibits "conditioning, basing or affecting the hiring" of governmental employees (except certain Exempt Employees) upon or because of any political reason or factor. A copy of the Judgment is attached. Please read it carefully and abide by all its provisions. Key points of the Judgment are summarized below.

Prohibited Activity

The Judgment contains a permanent injunction against any person to whom it applies as discussed below (if you are an employee of any of the listed public employers, this includes you) from conditioning, basing or affecting the hiring of any governmental employee (except certain Exempt Employees) upon any political reason or factor. HIRING MUST NOT BE BASED UPON OR AFFECTED BY THE PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEE'S POLITICAL AFFILIATION, POLITICAL SUPPORT OR ACTIVITY, POLITICAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION, PROMISES OF SUCH POLITICAL SUPPORT, ACTIVITY OR FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION. Nor may hiring be based upon or affected by the prospective employee's political sponsorship or recommendation.

The Judgment defines "governmental employee" as any full or part-time employee within the Northern District of Illinois by the State of Illinois, County of Cook, City of Chicago or any other non-federal governmental entity.

Applicability

The Judgment applies to the City of Chicago and its Mayor; the Forest Preserve District of Cook County; the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County; Treasurer, Clerk, Assessor and Sheriff of Cook County; the President of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County, the President of the Board of Commissioners of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County; the Chairman of the Democratic Party County Central Committee for Cook County; the Democratic Party County Central Committee for Cook County and its members; and the Chicago Park District. It applies to such persons individually and in their official capacities. It also applies to their successors in office, to all of their agents and employees and to all others who receive notice of the Judgment and who are in active concert or participation with any of such persons.

Violations

VIOLATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT MAY CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE PUNISHABLE BY FINE OR IMPRISONMENT. The Judgment becomes effective upon its entry on April 4, 1983. If you know of any violations of the Judgment, you may report them to your job supervisor or to the ________ or you may report them to the Court by letter addressed to the Clerk of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Any registered voter is entitled to bring complaints concerning any violations of the Judgment before this United States District Court in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph Q of the Judgment.

Exemptions

The Judgment permits the defendant public employers to apply for determinations that particular jobs are exempt from this and the earlier judgments as to those governmental employment positions for which party affiliation or considerations are an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the jobs. A limited number of positions have been exempted from the Judgment on an interim basis until the Court rules on any applications of defendants for exemptions. A list of interim exemptions is available from your employer.

Notices of Job Openings

The Judgment requires that notice and a description of the availability of governmental employment positions (other than exempt positions) be made public in the following ways:

    (1) By posting the notice at all employment
  offices of each defendant public employer. A list
  of all available job opportunities is similarly
  to be posted. Copies of notices and the list are
  to be available upon request. The existence and
  availability of such list is to be publicized
  quarterly in a newspaper help wanted section.
    (2) By mailing to any person who requests
  receiving such notice.

No person may be hired for such a non-exempt position, except in emergency situations, unless notice of the job has been given as specified in the Judgment.

Prior Judgments

Previous Consent Judgments in the case, entered in 1972, April 3, 1978, and June 27, 1980, remain in effect. They prohibit discharging or otherwise affecting or basing any term or aspect of governmental employment with regard to a person once hired upon any political reason or factor.

APPENDIX

June 21 nunc pro tunc June 20, 1983

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING MOTION OF
  CITY OF CHICAGO AND ITS MAYOR TO ENTER JUDGMENT

The City of Chicago and its Mayor have moved the Court to enter a form of Judgment as to them, supplanting as to them the Judgment of April 4, 1983. Plaintiffs have consented to that Motion. A hearing has been held as to the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of this resolution of this case as to these two defendants. On the basis of the evidence and other matters presented at the said hearing and the entire record in this case, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact

1. Pursuant to and in full compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including without limitation Rule 23, due and adequate notice was given to persons who are members of the plaintiff classes advising them of the Motion and of their opportunity to be heard with respect to it. In addition, the City of Chicago has given due and adequate notice of the Motion to all of its employees presently holding positions which would be made exempt positions under the proposed Judgment.

2. No objections to the Motion have been filed by any person with respect to the rights of the plaintiff classes. The only statement received by the Court from such a person was the statement of the Independent Voters of Illinois — Independent Precinct Organization. That statement was in favor of the Motion.

3. Statements of intention to object to the Motion were filed by an Amicus for employees, by various individual employees and by defendant Democratic Organization of Cook County.

4. The City of Chicago and plaintiffs have consented to the entry, in addition to the proposed Judgment, of an ancillary Order by which jurisdiction is retained by this Court so that, within three years, current holders of the positions to be exempted could, upon the occurrence of a discharge or demotion, ask the Court to delete the position from Part G of the Schedule of Exempt Positions which is a part of the proposed Judgment. In the light of this suggested ancillary Order, those persons who had indicated their intention to object and who appeared at the hearing withdrew all objections. No objections were presented at the hearing.

5. The Motion is recommended by counsel for the City and its Mayor and by counsel for the plaintiffs. Counsel for the plaintiffs are competent counsel experienced in class action and constitutional litigation.

6. This Order is entered after an earlier hearing on the remedy to be granted. That hearing covered, inter alia, the question of the number of temporary exemptions to be granted to the defendant governmental entities and offices. The factual presentation made at the earlier hearing with respect to remedy and exemptions was sufficient for the Court to evaluate the strength of the plaintiffs' case and any risks of continued litigation.

7. The proposed Judgment closely follows the text of the Court's own Judgment of April 4, 1983. The principal difference concerns the number of exemptions. The proposed Judgment, which would exempt approximately 1200 City employees (about 900 under the jurisdiction of the Mayor), consists principally of what has been characterized as management employees of the City, together with a certain number of staff assistants and executive secretaries. Exemptions of this kind and in this number will not materially affect the safeguarding of the rights of the plaintiff classes of independent voters and candidates.

8. The proposed resolution of the case as to the City of Chicago and its Mayor will, if properly implemented, essentially eliminate the contribution of the City and its Mayor to the patronage employment system's violations of plaintiffs' rights. It will, if properly implemented, ensure that the City does not by a patronage employment system deny plaintiff candidates an equal chance in elections and plaintiff voters an equal voice.

Conclusions of Law

A. The proposed Judgment constitutes a fair, reasonable and adequate resolution of the claims as to the City and its Mayor with respect to the rights of the plaintiff classes.

B. The proposed Judgment neither initiates nor authorizes any unconstitutional conduct.

C. The Judgment submitted by the City and its Mayor is approved in all respects and entered forthwith.

D. The necessity for an immediate resolution of this case makes it appropriate for a Rule 54(b) finding with respect to the ancillary decree. The Court expressly finds and determines that there is no just reason for delay and it directs that the Order now be entered as a final Judgment and be effective upon its entry.

JUDGMENT AS TO THE CITY OF CHICAGO AND ITS MAYOR

Plaintiffs Michael L. Shakman and Paul M. Lurie have filed their First Amended Complaint, as supplemented, on behalf of themselves and the classes they represent as determined by previous Order of Court. The First Amended Complaint, as supplemented, alleges that defendants violated plaintiffs' rights by illegally conditioning, basing and affecting the obtaining ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.