Single Course

{"id":309730851,"title":"Course #334- Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanamo Or U.S. Court - CD","handle":"course-334-boumediene-v-bush-guantanimo-or-u-s-court-1-hour","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 334\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestions of the Case:  \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3. Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4.\u003cspan\u003eCan the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the decision and conclusion statements of the case. How were all of the questions above answered, and do you agree or disagree with those answers?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:00:23-07:00","created_at":"2014-06-17T14:00:23-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["advanced","cds","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659295372,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 334","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #334- Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanamo Or U.S. Court - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":-1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":null,"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_65969132-3355-469d-9b54-61265601ccc8.jpg?v=1502732464"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_65969132-3355-469d-9b54-61265601ccc8.jpg?v=1502732464","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":5412552783,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_65969132-3355-469d-9b54-61265601ccc8.jpg?v=1502732464"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_65969132-3355-469d-9b54-61265601ccc8.jpg?v=1502732464","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 334\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestions of the Case:  \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3. Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4.\u003cspan\u003eCan the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the decision and conclusion statements of the case. How were all of the questions above answered, and do you agree or disagree with those answers?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":11517162572,"title":"Course #334- Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanamo Or U.S. Court - MP3","handle":"course-334-boumediene-v-bush-guantanamo-or-u-s-court-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 334\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestions of the Case:  \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3. Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4.\u003cspan\u003eCan the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the decision and conclusion statements of the case. How were all of the questions above answered, and do you agree or disagree with those answers?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:00:23-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T10:42:32-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["advanced","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","mp3","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659312012,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 334","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #334- Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanamo Or U.S. Court - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":-1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_a3c9ad70-c21b-46f7-ae6a-2747f0db76fc.jpg?v=1502732553"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_a3c9ad70-c21b-46f7-ae6a-2747f0db76fc.jpg?v=1502732553","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442201178191,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_a3c9ad70-c21b-46f7-ae6a-2747f0db76fc.jpg?v=1502732553"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_a3c9ad70-c21b-46f7-ae6a-2747f0db76fc.jpg?v=1502732553","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 334\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestions of the Case:  \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3. Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4.\u003cspan\u003eCan the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the decision and conclusion statements of the case. How were all of the questions above answered, and do you agree or disagree with those answers?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":309732323,"title":"Course #335- Tory v. Cochran: A Free Speech Issue - CD","handle":"course-335-tory-v-cochran-a-free-speech-issue-1-hour","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 335\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe renowned Johnnie Cochran sued his former client Ulysses Tory in a California court for making defaming statements. Tory had tried to force Cochran to pay him money in exchange for desisting, Cochran argued. A judge agreed and ordered Tory to never talk about Cochran again. Tory appealed unsuccessfully in state court, arguing the order violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Cochran died one week after oral argument.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDid a judge's order that someone stop making defaming statements about a public figure, even after that figure's death, violate the First Amendment right to free speech?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was that question answered by the court? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:06:48-07:00","created_at":"2014-06-17T14:06:48-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["cds","constitutional-law","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659420236,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 335","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #335- Tory v. Cochran: A Free Speech Issue - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":null,"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_682aa5bd-c3c2-41d7-9ecf-85fc1333fd81.jpg?v=1502732986"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_682aa5bd-c3c2-41d7-9ecf-85fc1333fd81.jpg?v=1502732986","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":5412585551,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_682aa5bd-c3c2-41d7-9ecf-85fc1333fd81.jpg?v=1502732986"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_682aa5bd-c3c2-41d7-9ecf-85fc1333fd81.jpg?v=1502732986","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 335\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe renowned Johnnie Cochran sued his former client Ulysses Tory in a California court for making defaming statements. Tory had tried to force Cochran to pay him money in exchange for desisting, Cochran argued. A judge agreed and ordered Tory to never talk about Cochran again. Tory appealed unsuccessfully in state court, arguing the order violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Cochran died one week after oral argument.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDid a judge's order that someone stop making defaming statements about a public figure, even after that figure's death, violate the First Amendment right to free speech?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was that question answered by the court? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":11517302604,"title":"Course #335- Tory v. Cochran: A Free Speech Issue - MP3","handle":"course-335-tory-v-cochran-a-free-speech-issue-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 335\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe renowned Johnnie Cochran sued his former client Ulysses Tory in a California court for making defaming statements. Tory had tried to force Cochran to pay him money in exchange for desisting, Cochran argued. A judge agreed and ordered Tory to never talk about Cochran again. Tory appealed unsuccessfully in state court, arguing the order violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Cochran died one week after oral argument.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDid a judge's order that someone stop making defaming statements about a public figure, even after that figure's death, violate the First Amendment right to free speech?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was that question answered by the court? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:06:48-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T10:51:55-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["constitutional-law","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","mp3","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659455884,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 335","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #335- Tory v. Cochran: A Free Speech Issue - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_232f3508-f266-489c-8858-819d012f6291.jpg?v=1502733116"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_232f3508-f266-489c-8858-819d012f6291.jpg?v=1502733116","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442202095695,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_232f3508-f266-489c-8858-819d012f6291.jpg?v=1502733116"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_232f3508-f266-489c-8858-819d012f6291.jpg?v=1502733116","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 335\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe renowned Johnnie Cochran sued his former client Ulysses Tory in a California court for making defaming statements. Tory had tried to force Cochran to pay him money in exchange for desisting, Cochran argued. A judge agreed and ordered Tory to never talk about Cochran again. Tory appealed unsuccessfully in state court, arguing the order violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Cochran died one week after oral argument.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDid a judge's order that someone stop making defaming statements about a public figure, even after that figure's death, violate the First Amendment right to free speech?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was that question answered by the court? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":309732655,"title":"Course #336- Munaf V. Geren: Habeas Corpus And The Military - CD","handle":"course-336-munaf-v-geren-habeas-corpus-and-the-military-1-hour","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 336\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.facts_of_the_case\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv ng-bind-html=\"case.facts_of_the_case\" class=\"ng-binding\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2005, Mohammad Munaf was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping by U.S. military officers acting as part of a multinational force in Iraq. Munaf's sister petitioned on his behalf for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. Soon after the petition was filed, Munaf was informed that he would be tried in an Iraqi court and transferred to Iraqi custody if convicted. Munaf filed a temporary restraining order attempting to block custody transfer. After the Iraqi court sentenced him to death and the district court dismissed his case for lack of jurisdiction, Munaf appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which granted an injunction against the transfer. However, the D.C. Circuit, like the district court, eventually concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Munaf's claim, basing its decision largely on the Court's ruling in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eHirota v. MacArthur\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e338 U.S. 197 (1948). That decision prohibited Japanese citizens held abroad by U.S. troops from filing habeas petitions to challenge sentences handed down by a military tribunal sitting in Japan but including U.S. military personnel. Petitioner urges the Court to set aside Hirota and its ruling and to base its reasoning on a string of cases reaching the opposite result. The case will be consolidated and heard along with another D.C. case, Geren v. Omar, 07-394, in which the D.C. Circuit allowed a habeas petition by a U.S. citizen held in Iraq because he had not yet been charged or convicted by an Iraqi court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion: Do U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions brought on behalf of U.S. citizens detained overseas by American military authorities working as part of a multinational force?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/section\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.question\"\u003e\u003c\/section\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:08:28-07:00","created_at":"2014-06-17T14:08:28-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["cds","constitutional-law","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659619532,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 336","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #336- Munaf V. Geren: Habeas Corpus And The Military - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":null,"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_14f58fbf-81f7-4bc6-ad10-09624419d41f.jpg?v=1502733775"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_14f58fbf-81f7-4bc6-ad10-09624419d41f.jpg?v=1502733775","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":5412618319,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_14f58fbf-81f7-4bc6-ad10-09624419d41f.jpg?v=1502733775"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_14f58fbf-81f7-4bc6-ad10-09624419d41f.jpg?v=1502733775","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 336\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.facts_of_the_case\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv ng-bind-html=\"case.facts_of_the_case\" class=\"ng-binding\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2005, Mohammad Munaf was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping by U.S. military officers acting as part of a multinational force in Iraq. Munaf's sister petitioned on his behalf for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. Soon after the petition was filed, Munaf was informed that he would be tried in an Iraqi court and transferred to Iraqi custody if convicted. Munaf filed a temporary restraining order attempting to block custody transfer. After the Iraqi court sentenced him to death and the district court dismissed his case for lack of jurisdiction, Munaf appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which granted an injunction against the transfer. However, the D.C. Circuit, like the district court, eventually concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Munaf's claim, basing its decision largely on the Court's ruling in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eHirota v. MacArthur\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e338 U.S. 197 (1948). That decision prohibited Japanese citizens held abroad by U.S. troops from filing habeas petitions to challenge sentences handed down by a military tribunal sitting in Japan but including U.S. military personnel. Petitioner urges the Court to set aside Hirota and its ruling and to base its reasoning on a string of cases reaching the opposite result. The case will be consolidated and heard along with another D.C. case, Geren v. Omar, 07-394, in which the D.C. Circuit allowed a habeas petition by a U.S. citizen held in Iraq because he had not yet been charged or convicted by an Iraqi court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion: Do U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions brought on behalf of U.S. citizens detained overseas by American military authorities working as part of a multinational force?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/section\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.question\"\u003e\u003c\/section\u003e"}

{"id":11517365644,"title":"Course #336- Munaf V. Geren: Habeas Corpus And The Military - MP3","handle":"course-336-munaf-v-geren-habeas-corpus-and-the-military-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 336\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.facts_of_the_case\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv ng-bind-html=\"case.facts_of_the_case\" class=\"ng-binding\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2005, Mohammad Munaf was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping by U.S. military officers acting as part of a multinational force in Iraq. Munaf's sister petitioned on his behalf for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. Soon after the petition was filed, Munaf was informed that he would be tried in an Iraqi court and transferred to Iraqi custody if convicted. Munaf filed a temporary restraining order attempting to block custody transfer. After the Iraqi court sentenced him to death and the district court dismissed his case for lack of jurisdiction, Munaf appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which granted an injunction against the transfer. However, the D.C. Circuit, like the district court, eventually concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Munaf's claim, basing its decision largely on the Court's ruling in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eHirota v. MacArthur\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e338 U.S. 197 (1948). That decision prohibited Japanese citizens held abroad by U.S. troops from filing habeas petitions to challenge sentences handed down by a military tribunal sitting in Japan but including U.S. military personnel. Petitioner urges the Court to set aside Hirota and its ruling and to base its reasoning on a string of cases reaching the opposite result. The case will be consolidated and heard along with another D.C. case, Geren v. Omar, 07-394, in which the D.C. Circuit allowed a habeas petition by a U.S. citizen held in Iraq because he had not yet been charged or convicted by an Iraqi court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion: Do U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions brought on behalf of U.S. citizens detained overseas by American military authorities working as part of a multinational force?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/section\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.question\"\u003e\u003c\/section\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:08:28-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T11:04:11-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["constitutional-law","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","mp3","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659634124,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 336","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #336- Munaf V. Geren: Habeas Corpus And The Military - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_ff96c6c4-351c-4a7a-96ff-7cc9bac8e601.jpg?v=1502733852"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_ff96c6c4-351c-4a7a-96ff-7cc9bac8e601.jpg?v=1502733852","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442202980431,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_ff96c6c4-351c-4a7a-96ff-7cc9bac8e601.jpg?v=1502733852"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_ff96c6c4-351c-4a7a-96ff-7cc9bac8e601.jpg?v=1502733852","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 336\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.facts_of_the_case\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv ng-bind-html=\"case.facts_of_the_case\" class=\"ng-binding\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2005, Mohammad Munaf was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping by U.S. military officers acting as part of a multinational force in Iraq. Munaf's sister petitioned on his behalf for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. Soon after the petition was filed, Munaf was informed that he would be tried in an Iraqi court and transferred to Iraqi custody if convicted. Munaf filed a temporary restraining order attempting to block custody transfer. After the Iraqi court sentenced him to death and the district court dismissed his case for lack of jurisdiction, Munaf appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which granted an injunction against the transfer. However, the D.C. Circuit, like the district court, eventually concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Munaf's claim, basing its decision largely on the Court's ruling in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eHirota v. MacArthur\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e338 U.S. 197 (1948). That decision prohibited Japanese citizens held abroad by U.S. troops from filing habeas petitions to challenge sentences handed down by a military tribunal sitting in Japan but including U.S. military personnel. Petitioner urges the Court to set aside Hirota and its ruling and to base its reasoning on a string of cases reaching the opposite result. The case will be consolidated and heard along with another D.C. case, Geren v. Omar, 07-394, in which the D.C. Circuit allowed a habeas petition by a U.S. citizen held in Iraq because he had not yet been charged or convicted by an Iraqi court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion: Do U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions brought on behalf of U.S. citizens detained overseas by American military authorities working as part of a multinational force?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/section\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.question\"\u003e\u003c\/section\u003e"}

{"id":11517461964,"title":"Course #337- Supreme Court: Meacham vs Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - CD","handle":"course-337-supreme-court-meacham-vs-knolls-atomic-power-laboratory-cd","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 337\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the New York-based federal research laboratory Knolls Atomic Power Lab instituted a downsizing program, it asked supervisors to rank employees based on three factors: performance, flexibility, and the criticality of their skills, and then to add points for years of service in order to determine who would be dismissed. Of the thirty-one employees who were let go, all but one were over the age of forty. Twenty-six of these dismissed employees filed suit against Knolls for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). A jury found for the employees and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment, relying on its 2005 decision in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003eto hold that \"an employer is not liable under the ADEA so long as the challenged employment action, in relying on specific non-age factors, constitutes a reasonable means to the employer's legitimate goals.\" On remand, the Second Circuit vacated its previous decision and held that the employees had failed to carry their burden of proving the evaluation system unreasonable. In seeking Supreme Court review, the employees argued that it should be Knolls, not them, who must prove the reasonableness of an action that would otherwise be prohibited.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnder the Supreme Court's decision in \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, must the employer or the employee prove the reasonableness of adverse employment decisions occurring as part of a claim for age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with this answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2017-08-14T11:14:54-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T11:21:57-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["cds","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","labor-employment-law","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43660272460,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #337- Supreme Court: Meacham vs Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_cff337fd-fee5-4878-8b89-9ea2426dbb7b.jpg?v=1502734919"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_cff337fd-fee5-4878-8b89-9ea2426dbb7b.jpg?v=1502734919","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442203963471,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_cff337fd-fee5-4878-8b89-9ea2426dbb7b.jpg?v=1502734919"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_cff337fd-fee5-4878-8b89-9ea2426dbb7b.jpg?v=1502734919","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 337\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the New York-based federal research laboratory Knolls Atomic Power Lab instituted a downsizing program, it asked supervisors to rank employees based on three factors: performance, flexibility, and the criticality of their skills, and then to add points for years of service in order to determine who would be dismissed. Of the thirty-one employees who were let go, all but one were over the age of forty. Twenty-six of these dismissed employees filed suit against Knolls for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). A jury found for the employees and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment, relying on its 2005 decision in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003eto hold that \"an employer is not liable under the ADEA so long as the challenged employment action, in relying on specific non-age factors, constitutes a reasonable means to the employer's legitimate goals.\" On remand, the Second Circuit vacated its previous decision and held that the employees had failed to carry their burden of proving the evaluation system unreasonable. In seeking Supreme Court review, the employees argued that it should be Knolls, not them, who must prove the reasonableness of an action that would otherwise be prohibited.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnder the Supreme Court's decision in \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, must the employer or the employee prove the reasonableness of adverse employment decisions occurring as part of a claim for age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with this answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":11517464972,"title":"Course #337- Supreme Court: Meacham vs Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - MP3","handle":"course-337-supreme-court-meacham-vs-knolls-atomic-power-laboratory-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 337\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the New York-based federal research laboratory Knolls Atomic Power Lab instituted a downsizing program, it asked supervisors to rank employees based on three factors: performance, flexibility, and the criticality of their skills, and then to add points for years of service in order to determine who would be dismissed. Of the thirty-one employees who were let go, all but one were over the age of forty. Twenty-six of these dismissed employees filed suit against Knolls for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). A jury found for the employees and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment, relying on its 2005 decision in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003eto hold that \"an employer is not liable under the ADEA so long as the challenged employment action, in relying on specific non-age factors, constitutes a reasonable means to the employer's legitimate goals.\" On remand, the Second Circuit vacated its previous decision and held that the employees had failed to carry their burden of proving the evaluation system unreasonable. In seeking Supreme Court review, the employees argued that it should be Knolls, not them, who must prove the reasonableness of an action that would otherwise be prohibited.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnder the Supreme Court's decision in \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, must the employer or the employee prove the reasonableness of adverse employment decisions occurring as part of a claim for age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with this answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2017-08-14T11:14:54-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T11:22:21-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","labor-employment-law","mp3","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43660277196,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #337- Supreme Court: Meacham vs Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_d684a443-e04b-414d-85ea-7f598f25bed6.jpg?v=1502734964"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_d684a443-e04b-414d-85ea-7f598f25bed6.jpg?v=1502734964","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442204192847,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_d684a443-e04b-414d-85ea-7f598f25bed6.jpg?v=1502734964"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_d684a443-e04b-414d-85ea-7f598f25bed6.jpg?v=1502734964","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 337\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the New York-based federal research laboratory Knolls Atomic Power Lab instituted a downsizing program, it asked supervisors to rank employees based on three factors: performance, flexibility, and the criticality of their skills, and then to add points for years of service in order to determine who would be dismissed. Of the thirty-one employees who were let go, all but one were over the age of forty. Twenty-six of these dismissed employees filed suit against Knolls for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). A jury found for the employees and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment, relying on its 2005 decision in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003eto hold that \"an employer is not liable under the ADEA so long as the challenged employment action, in relying on specific non-age factors, constitutes a reasonable means to the employer's legitimate goals.\" On remand, the Second Circuit vacated its previous decision and held that the employees had failed to carry their burden of proving the evaluation system unreasonable. In seeking Supreme Court review, the employees argued that it should be Knolls, not them, who must prove the reasonableness of an action that would otherwise be prohibited.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnder the Supreme Court's decision in \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, must the employer or the employee prove the reasonableness of adverse employment decisions occurring as part of a claim for age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with this answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":309732863,"title":"Course #338- Chamber Of Commerce V. Brown: Labor Law - CD","handle":"course-337-meacham-v-knolls-atomic-power-lab-labor-law-1-hour","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 338\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credits\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the California legislature passed laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" a group of California companies brought suit claiming the state laws were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 7. The Act provides that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered evidence of unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers. The California companies argued that the state laws infringe upon their \"safe harbor\" for anti-labor speech embodied in the Act.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, after entering two panel decisions holding the California law preempted, issued a split en banc opinion holding that it was not. The Second Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion on similar facts. The Court's decision in this case will affect roughly a dozen other states currently considering adopting legislation substantially similar to the California law.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes the National Labor Relations Act, which states that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers, preempt state laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" even if the public funds are transparently segregated?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:09:48-07:00","created_at":"2014-06-17T14:09:48-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["cds","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","labor-employment-law","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659852044,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 338","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #338- Chamber Of Commerce V. Brown: Labor Law - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":null,"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_9036de87-ddfd-45d0-99f3-eea57717d6b7.jpg?v=1502734233"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_9036de87-ddfd-45d0-99f3-eea57717d6b7.jpg?v=1502734233","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":5412651087,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_9036de87-ddfd-45d0-99f3-eea57717d6b7.jpg?v=1502734233"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_9036de87-ddfd-45d0-99f3-eea57717d6b7.jpg?v=1502734233","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 338\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credits\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the California legislature passed laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" a group of California companies brought suit claiming the state laws were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 7. The Act provides that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered evidence of unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers. The California companies argued that the state laws infringe upon their \"safe harbor\" for anti-labor speech embodied in the Act.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, after entering two panel decisions holding the California law preempted, issued a split en banc opinion holding that it was not. The Second Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion on similar facts. The Court's decision in this case will affect roughly a dozen other states currently considering adopting legislation substantially similar to the California law.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes the National Labor Relations Act, which states that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers, preempt state laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" even if the public funds are transparently segregated?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":11517409356,"title":"Course #338- Chamber Of Commerce V. Brown: Labor Law - MP3","handle":"course-338-chamber-of-commerce-v-brown-labor-law-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 338\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credits\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the California legislature passed laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" a group of California companies brought suit claiming the state laws were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 7. The Act provides that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered evidence of unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers. The California companies argued that the state laws infringe upon their \"safe harbor\" for anti-labor speech embodied in the Act.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, after entering two panel decisions holding the California law preempted, issued a split en banc opinion holding that it was not. The Second Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion on similar facts. The Court's decision in this case will affect roughly a dozen other states currently considering adopting legislation substantially similar to the California law.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes the National Labor Relations Act, which states that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers, preempt state laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" even if the public funds are transparently segregated?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:09:48-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T11:12:58-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","labor-employment-law","mp3","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659973836,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 338","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #338- Chamber Of Commerce V. Brown: Labor Law - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_191716e0-09f0-4969-bf75-a8cce104a858.jpg?v=1502734381"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_191716e0-09f0-4969-bf75-a8cce104a858.jpg?v=1502734381","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442203177039,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_191716e0-09f0-4969-bf75-a8cce104a858.jpg?v=1502734381"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_191716e0-09f0-4969-bf75-a8cce104a858.jpg?v=1502734381","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 338\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credits\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the California legislature passed laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" a group of California companies brought suit claiming the state laws were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 7. The Act provides that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered evidence of unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers. The California companies argued that the state laws infringe upon their \"safe harbor\" for anti-labor speech embodied in the Act.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, after entering two panel decisions holding the California law preempted, issued a split en banc opinion holding that it was not. The Second Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion on similar facts. The Court's decision in this case will affect roughly a dozen other states currently considering adopting legislation substantially similar to the California law.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes the National Labor Relations Act, which states that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers, preempt state laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" even if the public funds are transparently segregated?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":309733363,"title":"Course #339 - Supreme Court: FL Dept of Rev vs. Piccadilly: Bankruptcy \u0026 Tax Law - CD","handle":"course-339-fl-dept-of-rev-v-piccadilly-bankruptcy-tax-law-1-hour","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 339\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2003, Piccadilly Cafeterias filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition in federal court in Florida asking the bankruptcy court for permission to auction off its assets in order to fund a reorganization plan. Piccadilly sought a tax exemption under 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) which states that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax.\" Florida vehemently opposed this exemption and sought to collect $32,000 in taxes from Piccadilly.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bankruptcy court, the district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit all found in favor of Piccadilly, holding that 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) allowed courts to exempt from taxes pre-confirmation asset sales that were essential to the completion of a reorganization plan. In urging the Court to grant certiorari, Florida pointed to both Third and Fourth Circuit decisions holding that such pre-confirmation asset sales were subject to state taxation, while Piccadilly Cafeterias contended that these so-called \"circuit splits\" only involve a small handful of cases and require no resolution by the Court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes 11 U.S.C. Section 1146(c), a provision of the Bankruptcy Code stating that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax,\" prohibit states from imposing taxes on pre-confirmation asset sales that are essential to the completion of a reorganization plan?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:12:38-07:00","created_at":"2014-06-17T14:12:38-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["bankruptcy-restructuring","cds","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","single-course","supreme-court","tax-law"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43660482700,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 339","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #339 - Supreme Court: FL Dept of Rev vs. Piccadilly: Bankruptcy \u0026 Tax Law - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":0,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":null,"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_2a208bc2-825c-4b5b-aa81-b3453c49f931.jpg?v=1502735256"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_2a208bc2-825c-4b5b-aa81-b3453c49f931.jpg?v=1502735256","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":5412683855,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_2a208bc2-825c-4b5b-aa81-b3453c49f931.jpg?v=1502735256"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_2a208bc2-825c-4b5b-aa81-b3453c49f931.jpg?v=1502735256","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 339\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2003, Piccadilly Cafeterias filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition in federal court in Florida asking the bankruptcy court for permission to auction off its assets in order to fund a reorganization plan. Piccadilly sought a tax exemption under 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) which states that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax.\" Florida vehemently opposed this exemption and sought to collect $32,000 in taxes from Piccadilly.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bankruptcy court, the district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit all found in favor of Piccadilly, holding that 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) allowed courts to exempt from taxes pre-confirmation asset sales that were essential to the completion of a reorganization plan. In urging the Court to grant certiorari, Florida pointed to both Third and Fourth Circuit decisions holding that such pre-confirmation asset sales were subject to state taxation, while Piccadilly Cafeterias contended that these so-called \"circuit splits\" only involve a small handful of cases and require no resolution by the Court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes 11 U.S.C. Section 1146(c), a provision of the Bankruptcy Code stating that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax,\" prohibit states from imposing taxes on pre-confirmation asset sales that are essential to the completion of a reorganization plan?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":11517500300,"title":"Course #339- Supreme Court: FL Dept of Rev vs. Piccadilly: Bankruptcy \u0026 Tax Law - MP3","handle":"course-339-supreme-court-fl-dept-of-rev-vs-piccadilly-bankruptcy-tax-law-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 339\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2003, Piccadilly Cafeterias filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition in federal court in Florida asking the bankruptcy court for permission to auction off its assets in order to fund a reorganization plan. Piccadilly sought a tax exemption under 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) which states that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax.\" Florida vehemently opposed this exemption and sought to collect $32,000 in taxes from Piccadilly.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bankruptcy court, the district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit all found in favor of Piccadilly, holding that 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) allowed courts to exempt from taxes pre-confirmation asset sales that were essential to the completion of a reorganization plan. In urging the Court to grant certiorari, Florida pointed to both Third and Fourth Circuit decisions holding that such pre-confirmation asset sales were subject to state taxation, while Piccadilly Cafeterias contended that these so-called \"circuit splits\" only involve a small handful of cases and require no resolution by the Court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes 11 U.S.C. Section 1146(c), a provision of the Bankruptcy Code stating that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax,\" prohibit states from imposing taxes on pre-confirmation asset sales that are essential to the completion of a reorganization plan?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:12:38-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T11:28:45-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["bankruptcy-restructuring","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","mp3","single-course","supreme-court","tax-law"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43660539916,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 339","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #339- Supreme Court: FL Dept of Rev vs. Piccadilly: Bankruptcy \u0026 Tax Law - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_df4f8600-728a-4aaa-98dd-a4ca6e89ce58.jpg?v=1502735328"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_df4f8600-728a-4aaa-98dd-a4ca6e89ce58.jpg?v=1502735328","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442205864015,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_df4f8600-728a-4aaa-98dd-a4ca6e89ce58.jpg?v=1502735328"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_df4f8600-728a-4aaa-98dd-a4ca6e89ce58.jpg?v=1502735328","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 339\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2003, Piccadilly Cafeterias filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition in federal court in Florida asking the bankruptcy court for permission to auction off its assets in order to fund a reorganization plan. Piccadilly sought a tax exemption under 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) which states that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax.\" Florida vehemently opposed this exemption and sought to collect $32,000 in taxes from Piccadilly.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bankruptcy court, the district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit all found in favor of Piccadilly, holding that 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) allowed courts to exempt from taxes pre-confirmation asset sales that were essential to the completion of a reorganization plan. In urging the Court to grant certiorari, Florida pointed to both Third and Fourth Circuit decisions holding that such pre-confirmation asset sales were subject to state taxation, while Piccadilly Cafeterias contended that these so-called \"circuit splits\" only involve a small handful of cases and require no resolution by the Court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes 11 U.S.C. Section 1146(c), a provision of the Bankruptcy Code stating that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax,\" prohibit states from imposing taxes on pre-confirmation asset sales that are essential to the completion of a reorganization plan?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}