502 research outputs found
Marriage record of Finley, Alexander and Howell, Allie
No full textMarriage license for Alexander Finley and Allie Howell. J.J. Boyett was the Notary Public
Letter from Thomas Bruton & N. Fisher to James B. Finley
No full textUpon his arrival home, Bruton was greeted kindly and treated well by his friends. However, he has just learned that a fake letter was sent to Finley, purportedly from Bruton, asking for payment for services rendered in Columbus. Bruton is mortified that Finley received this letter, written by a cowardly villain. Bruton wants Finley to know in no uncertain terms that he was not the author of the letter. Abstract Number - 420https://digitalcommons.owu.edu/finley-letters/1618/thumbnail.jp
Letter from Andrew Steelman to James B. Finley
No full textSteelman writes concerning his incarcerated son James. He would like Finley to deal strictly with him. Author is great grandson of Andrew T. Steelman. He has recently gone home to New Jersey to deal with the estate of his great grandfather. Folks do not want James to return home when released. Abstract Number - 1086https://digitalcommons.owu.edu/finley-letters/2070/thumbnail.jp
Letter from John B. Bayard to James B. Finley
No full textBayard tells Rev. Finley how glad Mrs. Bayard was to receive his letter. The author thinks that the Church is in better condition now and there is not as much ado about reform as in past years. Abstract Number - 66https://digitalcommons.owu.edu/finley-letters/1064/thumbnail.jp
Letter from John McDonald to James B. Finley
No full textFive counties -- Franklin, Pickaway, Ross, Pike and Scioto -- have formed a literary society named the Logan Historical Society. One of the objects of the Society is to erect a monument in memory of the Mingo Chief Logan, and secondly to collect material for a history of the early pioneers. McDonald has been selected by the Society as editor of the book which will be written. McDonald marvels that he has become an author at 60 years of age, stating that a special providence sent Finley to him. He would never have become an author without the encouragement of Finley. Rev. David Reed continues to have a good ministry among the people. Finally, McDonald is critical of the Ladies Repository because the articles are rather grave and philosophical for such a title. Abstract Number - 572https://digitalcommons.owu.edu/finley-letters/1868/thumbnail.jp
Letter from Newton E. Wright to James B. Finley
No full textThe watch stolen by prisoner Piles has not yet been received in Cincinnati. Wright wonders whether Chaplain Finley has sent it on to someone in Cincinnati as agreed. If so, who did he send it to? [Note: Author dates the letter January 7, 1846, but it is actually 1847. See the previous letter from Newton E. Wright dated September 16, 1846 for context]. Abstract Number - 250https://digitalcommons.owu.edu/finley-letters/1248/thumbnail.jp
Letter from J. Drummond to James B. Finley
No full textDrummond is collecting books for the prisoners at the State Prison and would like to know whether they need Bibles, or whether each prisoner is furnished with one. He also asks whether temperance newspapers would be of any use. Drummond asks Finley to send him a copy of McDonald\u27s book containing thrilling stories about border warfare. If he gets permission from the author, he plans to copy certain portions for the Pittsburgh Christian Advocate. Abstract Number - 1057https://digitalcommons.owu.edu/finley-letters/2041/thumbnail.jp
Letter from Henry Wilkins to James B. Finley
No full textDr. Henry Wilkins [1767-1847, author of revised version of John Wesley\u27s Primitive Physic for an American audience, The Family Adviser, first edition 1793] writes to Finley concerning medicine among the Wyandots. Do they use medicine or prescribe drugs? What are the diseases they suffer? Is their medical knowledge learned from ancestors or from Europeans? If they do have effective medicines, Wilkins wants to know about it. He writes that prevention is always better than trying to cure a disease. He provides advice on prevention (bark, bitters, calomel, etc.) and medical recipes. Abstract Number - 681https://digitalcommons.owu.edu/finley-letters/1775/thumbnail.jp
The Congressional Resurrection of Supplemental Jurisdiction in the Post-Finley Era
No full textPendent and ancillary jurisdiction are necessary judicial creations for the just and efficient adjudication of lawsuits in an increasingly complex and overburdened court system. In Finley v. United States, however, the United States Supreme Court threatened the viability of these doctrines by requiring explicit congressional authorization for the exercise of extrajurisdictional power. Realizing Finley\u27s negative import, Congress alleviated the Supreme Court\u27s threat within a year and a half of the decision. In enacting section 1367 of Title 28 of the United States Code, Congress supplied the federal courts with the express legislative authorization required by Finley. Expanding the federal courts\u27 pre-Finley pendent and ancillary powers in some regards and restricting them in others, Congress regularized and clarified many of the doctrines\u27 prior inconsistencies.
This Note examines Congress\u27 post-Finley resurrection of federal extra-jurisdictional power. After reviewing the development of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction and exploring Finley\u27s practical implications, the Note analyzes the new uniform framework of supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367. The author then proposes a scheme of statutory interpretation that would ensure that parties and claims are joined in a consistent manner. Such a construction also would aid federal courts in effectuating Congress\u27 objective: the fair and efficient use of the judicial system
The Congressional Resurrection of Supplemental Jurisdiction in the Post-Finley Era
No full textPendent and ancillary jurisdiction are necessary judicial creations for the just and efficient adjudication of lawsuits in an increasingly complex and overburdened court system. In Finley v. United States, however, the United States Supreme Court threatened the viability of these doctrines by requiring explicit congressional authorization for the exercise of extrajurisdictional power. Realizing Finley\u27s negative import, Congress alleviated the Supreme Court\u27s threat within a year and a half of the decision. In enacting section 1367 of Title 28 of the United States Code, Congress supplied the federal courts with the express legislative authorization required by Finley. Expanding the federal courts\u27 pre-Finley pendent and ancillary powers in some regards and restricting them in others, Congress regularized and clarified many of the doctrines\u27 prior inconsistencies.
This Note examines Congress\u27 post-Finley resurrection of federal extra-jurisdictional power. After reviewing the development of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction and exploring Finley\u27s practical implications, the Note analyzes the new uniform framework of supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367. The author then proposes a scheme of statutory interpretation that would ensure that parties and claims are joined in a consistent manner. Such a construction also would aid federal courts in effectuating Congress\u27 objective: the fair and efficient use of the judicial system
- …
