Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Challenge to Arizona Judicial Ethics Codes, and Arbitration, Criminal and Environmental Matters

By FindLaw Staff on August 17, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Campbell v. Henry, No. 07-16481, involved petitioner's appeal from the dismissal of her federal petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to file within the one year statute of limitations mandated by 28 U.S.C. section 2244(d).  The court reversed on the ground that, for purposes of the section 2244(d) statute of limitations, she was entitled to the benefit of the mailbox rule when determining the filing dates of her state and federal habeas petitions, all of which were filed pro se.

Wolfson v. Brammer, No. 09-15298, concerned an action by a candidate for judicial office in Arizona, challenging several canons of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct (Code) that restricted his political speech and campaign-related activities while a candidate for judicial office.  The court reversed the dismissal of the action as moot on the grounds that 1) plaintiff presented a controversy evading review; 2) there was more than sufficient evidence to support a finding that plaintiff intended to seek judicial office in the future; and 3) it was true that plaintiff could not obtain revision of the Code from defendants, but he could nevertheless obtain a form of effective redress in this action.

Johnson v. Gruma Corp. No. 08-56911, involved plaintiff's appeal from the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of defendant.  The court affirmed on the grounds that 1) the arbitrator correctly read the arbitration clause to mean that the parties intended to be governed by the California Arbitration Act; and 2) the arbitrator did not violate California disclosure rules, and did not exceed his powers.

League of Wilderness Defenders v. Allen, No. 09-35094, concerned an action alleging that the Five Buttes Project, which authorized certain logging activities, violated the National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.  The court reversed summary judgment for plaintiffs on the grounds that 1) the Forest Service's alleged admissions about possible harms actually described the balancing of risks that the Forest Service was required to undertake, and such balancing was entirely appropriate under the Northwest Forest Plan; and 2) the Forest Service adequately considered and responded to alternative views about the Project's potential environmental consequences.

Related Resources

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard