text:
Results tagged ' J.G. Taylor Spink Award '
A voice for baseball
By Samantha Carr
Dave Van Horne was broadcasting basketball and football in Virginia when he met Frank Soden, who told him about an opening in baseball broadcasting for the Richmond Braves of the International League.
"When I heard about an opening in baseball, I jumped on it," said Van Horne.
Van Horne got the job and served as a broadcaster for Richmond from 1966-68, which marked the beginning of a very special career in baseball. He was named Wednesday as the 35th winner of the Baseball Hall of Fame's Ford C. Frick Award for excellence in broadcasting and will be honored over Hall of Fame Weekend, July 22-25 in Cooperstown.
"This is the highest award a baseball broadcaster can receive," he said. "I am obviously thrilled, humbled and very excited. It is the professional highlight of my career."
While in Richmond, Van Horne broadcast Braves home games live, but worked on wire recreation for road games.
"It was a great learning process to broadcast games I was not attending or looking at," said Van Horne.
Van Horne was introduced to John McHale, then president of the Atlanta Braves, who offered him a chance to go to Montreal and work for the Expos after McHale took over the National League's newest expansion team.
"I knew about two weeks into the job at Richmond that baseball broadcasting was what I wanted to do if I could make a living at it," said Van Horne. "Now I am entering my 43rd year."
Van Horne has called games for the Expos and Marlins during his long career and been the voice of moments like Willie Mays' 3,000th hit and Steve Carlton striking out his 4,000th batter.
Van Horne will join Pat Gillick, who was elected to the Hall of Fame on Monday by the Expansion Era Committee; Bill Conlin, winner of the 2011 J.G. Taylor Spink Award; and any electees from the BBWAA election announced Jan. 5 at 2011 Hall of Fame Weekend.
"I am humbled to be among those people that are previous winners of this award," said Van Horne. "This was a very overwhelming and emotional day."
Samantha Carr is the manager of web and digital media for the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.
History comes alive
By Trevor Hayes
Several of today's stars continued to carve out a bit of history for themselves this week alongside some notable Hall of Famers.
Doubled-Up: With double No. 50 Wednesday, Brian Roberts became the fourth player with three or more 50-double seasons. Hall of Famers Stan Musial and Paul Waner each did it three times while Hall of Famer Tris Speaker did it five times. Including his 51 last season, Roberts has put together his second straight 50-double season, putting him in an elite club with nine players – including three Hall of Famers: Speaker, Joe Medwick and Billy Herman.
On the subject of doubles, the same night Roberts got 50, the Royals Billy Butler hit three doubles in a game for fourth time this season. According to the Elias Sports Bureau, Butler's binge is unprecedented. No player has had four three-double games in a season dating back to 1901.
Quick Hit: A lot has been written about Derek Jeter tying Hall of Famer Lou Gehrig on the Yankees hits list. But one note that might slip by is that Jeter is now the fourth active player to hold his franchise's all-time hits mark. Ivan Rodriguez returned to Texas earlier this season, where he has the most hits in Senators/Rangers club history. The other two all-time franchise leaders for the team they currently play for are Colorado's Todd Helton and Tampa Bay's Carl Crawford.
Doc and the Babe: The Yankees might not like Roy Halladay very much. Most recently he stopped their seven-game winning streak with a one-hitter, but the Blue Jays' ace has always been tough against the Bombers. He holds a .739 winning percentage against the Yankees with a 17-6 record. The only man better than him (min. 20 decisions) made his name as a hitter in New York. However, as a pitcher in Boston, future Hall of Famer Babe Ruth went 17-5 (.773) against his eventual team.
Slugging shortstops: Hanley Ramirez connected for the 100th home run of his career on Sunday, making him the fourth-fastest shortstop to reach the century mark. At 595 games, only Alex Rodriguez (470 games), Nomar Garciaparra (491) and Hall of Famer Ernie Banks (500) got there faster.
Goodbye to the Real McCoy: Longtime Reds beat writer Hal McCoy will be honored Wednesday prior to Cincinnati's game against the Astros. The 2002 J.G. Taylor Spink winner announced earlier this season he will be retiring after 37 years covering the Reds. As a special treat, McCoy's paper, Dayton Daily News, is sponsoring half-price tickets to the game.
Trevor Hayes is the editorial production manager at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.
2009 Hall of Fame Induction Blog
Steve Light, the Hall of Fame's manager of museum programs, ran a live blog from the 2009 Baseball Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony in Cooperstown. Readers of his live banter had the ability to comment or ask questions.
11:00 a.m. Good morning everyone, and welcome to the National Baseball Hall of Fame's official live blog for the 2009 Induction Ceremony as we get ready to induct the Hall of Fame's newest members, Joe Gordon, Rickey Henderson, and Jim Rice. My name is Steve Light, and I am the manager of museum programs here at the Hall of Fame. Right now I'm sitting on "Radio Row" here at the Induction Site – The Clark Sports Center. I'll be bringing you live updates on the ceremony all afternoon, so stay tuned and send me your questions and comments.
The Induction Ceremony is just about two and a half hours away. Right now Hall of Fame staff and volunteers are busy wrapping up all the final preparations. Wondering about the forecast? Right now it's mostly cloudy and 75 degrees. We do have a threat of isolated thunderstorms this afternoon, but hopefully we'll stay dry for the ceremony.
11:10 a.m. The crowd has already started to build here. In fact, some fans set up chairs to stake out their spots yesterday morning. If you are in or near Cooperstown, don't forget that the ceremony is free and open to the public! If you can't get here, you can catch live coverage on the MLB Network beginning at 12:30. We will also stream the ceremony live on our website, www.baseballhall.org
11:16 a.m. Red Sox Nation has turned out in full force this weekend to celebrate Jim Rice. Catering to the crowd, the big screen next to the stage is playing highlights from the 2004 Red Sox season.
11:35 a.m. 51 Hall of Famers have turned out to welcome their three newest members this weekend. Of course, today is not just about Jim, Joe, and Rickey. We will also honor J.G. Taylor Spink Award winner Nick Peters, and Ford C. Frick Award winner Tony Kubek. Peters covered the San Francisco Giants for 47 years, 1961 – 2007. Kubek has worked as an analyst for NBC's Game of the Week, the Toronto Blue Jays, and the New York Yankees for 30 years. He is also the first exclusively television analyst to win the Frick Award.
11:36 a.m. [Comment From Kevin Brazee]
Do you know who will speak first Henderson or Rice?
11:36 a.m. Great question Kevin! The final order has not been decided yet, but Jim Rice will likely speak first.
11:53 a.m. We've had a great weekend here in Cooperstown already. On Friday our annual PLAY Ball! with Ozzie Smith event raised $10,000 for the Hall of Fame's Educational programs and gave some fans the opportunity of a lifetime to interact with Ozzie, Wade Boggs, Harmon Killebrew and Eddie Murray on Doubleday Field. Yesterday at the Clark Sports Center a crowd of over 750 people watched four families' compete against Dick Williams, Goose Gossage and Ryne Sandberg in our annual Connecting Generations, a Family Feud-like game show. Harold Reynolds served as the host.
11:56 p.m. The gates have opened in the seated sections and fans begin to stream to their seats as the excitement begins to build. Just about an hour and a half away.
12:04 p.m. Red Sox Nation isn't alone here in Cooperstown this weekend. The section 3 seats directly behind me are filled with Oakland Athletics' gear. Feel free to send any questions you might have about today's Induction Ceremony, and be sure to include where you are from!
12:17 p.m. Let's talk some stats now, starting with Rickey. Henderson is the 44th player elected on the first ballot. He received 94.8% of the vote from the Baseball Writers Association of America.
Henderson played in 10 All-Star games, won three silver sluggers, and was named the 1990 AL MVP. During his 25 year career he set career records for runs, stolen bases, and walks. The records for runs and stolen bases still stand. Rickey also holds the single season steals record, and led the league in steals a record 12 times.
12:22 p.m. Jim Rice was elected on his 15th year on the Baseball Writers ballot, receiving 76.4% of the vote. He joins two other famous Hall of Fame Red Sox leftfielders, Ted Williams and Carl Yastrzemski. In his 16-year major league career Rice was one of the most feared sluggers in the American League. He was an 8-time All-Star, led the league in home runs 3 times and won an AL MVP in 1978.
12:25 p.m. [Comment From C Itle]
I can't find the stream link. Could you please post it here?
12:26 p.m. The live stream will be posted on the Hall's website at 12:30 eastern time. Just visit www.baseballhall.org.
12:30 p.m. Nine-time All-Star Joe Gordon was elected on the pre-1943 Veterans Committee ballot. He received 10 of the 12 committee votes. Gordon was a member of five World Series winning teams, and won the 1942 Most Valuable Player Award. During his first six seasons, Gordon and the New York Yankees won five pennants and four World Series titles. He was traded to Cleveland in 1946, and helped lead the Indians to their World Series title in 1948, hitting 32 home runs and driving in 120 runs.
12:33 p.m. A lot of people are asking who is representing Joe Gordon here today. It will be Joe's daughter, Judy Gordon.
12:35 p.m. A note for all you fans out there who might be attending a major league game today: save your tickets! The Hall will grant free admission to all fans who present a ticket stub from a major league game bearing the date July 26, 2009. This opportunity is good right up until next year's Induction.
12:47 p.m. I'm getting some more questions about where to find the televised broadcast, so for those joining our live blog late, you can catch live coverage on the MLB Network (their broadcast has already started!) or you can stream them onto your computer via our website, www.baseballhall.org.
Casey is on stage warming up for his annual presentation of "Casey at the Bat". That surely means the start of the ceremony is getting closer.
12:55 p.m. With Joe Gordon, Rickey Henderson, and Tony Kubek all being honored today, it's no surprise that Yankees GM Brian Cashman has arrived and is in the audience for today's ceremony. Another notable name spotted in the audience: Keith Olberman.
Right now on the big screen, 2009 Steele Intern Daniel Sampson interviews MLB Network commentator and former major leaguer Harold Reynolds.
1:00 p.m. [Comment From Fitz – Boston]
Have you seen Freddie Lynn in the crowd? Any other Rice teammates?
1:00 p.m. Haven't seen Fred Lynn, Fitz. But Dwight Evans is in town.
1:05 p.m. Other former teammates expected today: Dave Henderson and Bob Montgomery for Rice and Dave Stewart for Henderson.
Casey is at the bat on the Induction Stage right now, 25 minutes to go!
1:11 p.m. Can't make it to Cooperstown today? How about tomorrow morning? We conclude our Hall of Fame Weekend festivities with our annual Legends Series event right here at the Clark Sports Center. Rickey and Jim will sit down for an interview to reflect on their experiences this weekend, which must have been a whirlwind for them. Tickets ($10) are still available by contacting the Hall of Fame's membership department.
1:17 p.m. Well if Brian Cashman is here for the Yankee Inductees, it shouldn't surprise you that the Red Sox's John Henry and Larry Lucchino are here to support Jim Rice (and of course Rickey Henderson, who played for the Red Sox as well).
1:24 p.m. Five minutes to go! Who do you think will get the biggest cheers as the Hall of Famers are announced?
1:30 p.m. The Hall of Famers are on the stage, we're just about ready to go.
1:30 p.m. And Rickey and Jim have just arrived on stage, to a great ovation from the crowd.
1:37 p.m. President Jeff Idelson and Chairman of the Board Jane Forbes Clark offer welcoming remarks. As Ms. Clark points out, 51 of the 65 living Hall of Famers are on stage today. Where else can you get such a collection of greats in one place at one time?
Now the MC of today's ceremony is introduced, George Grande. George begins the player introductions.
1:40 p.m. George did a great job having fun with fans and introducing the Hall of Famers during the Red Carpet Arrivals event at the Museum last night as they arrived for a private reception. If you are ever in Cooperstown for Hall of Fame Weekend that is definitely an event to check out.
1:47 p.m. [Comment From Shawn Anderson, Illinois]
Which Hall of Famer elicits the biggest hush when he enters the room? Meaning…who makes everyone stop what they are doing?
1:47 p.m. Great question Shawn! I can't speak for everyone, but for me I am in awe any time I see Willie Mays.
1:48 p.m. Biggest ovation yet? Yaz get's a prolonged standing O.
1:52 p.m. Juan Marichal is introduced. Juan was at the Hall of Fame earlier this year as we opened a brand new exhibit on baseball in the Caribbean called �Viva Baseball! If you haven't seen it make sure you come on out to Cooperstown!
Speaking of new exhibits, the Hall also has a brand new exhibit this year entitled Hank Aaron: Chasing the Dream. Hank is introduced, and the fans deliver another loud ovation.
1:58 p.m. And now this year's Inductees are introduced, along with Judy Gordon on behalf of her father.
The Red Sox fans make their presence known as Jim Rice is introduced, while shouts of "Rickey" echo through the crowd as George Grande introduces "the greatest leadoff hitter of all time."
2:12 p.m. A bit of rain has moved in but it hasn't dampened any spirits. The ceremony is going to be moved along a bit however due to storms expected later this afternoon. After the invocation and national anthems, it's Joe Gordon's turn! Bud Selig reads the inscription on the plaque as Hall President Jeff Idelson presents it to the crowd.
2:12 p.m. Judy Gordon takes the podium.
2:16 p.m. Judy talks about how her father reached out to Larry Doby in his first ever day in the major leagues as he desegregated the American League. "This was not an isolated incident. This was how my dad lived his entire life." She then notes that today marks the 11th anniversary of Doby's Induction into the Hall of Fame.
2:19 p.m. Here's an interesting story about the 1948 season with the Cleveland Indians, in which Gordon hit 32 home runs. According to Judy, he received a case of Wheaties and a case of gum for every home run he hit. Judy Gordon: "As I remember, even the dog got more athletic eating the Wheaties."
2:24 p.m. A very touching moment and a loud standing ovation here as Judy Gordon concludes by indicating that her family considers Cooperstown and the National Baseball Hall of Fame as her father's final resting place where he will be remembered forever.
Next up: Jim Rice.
2:25 p.m. Anyone have any special memories about watching Rice play? Send them along!
2:28 p.m. Jane Forbes Clark welcomes Jim to the Hall of Fame family, and Bud Selig reads the inscription on his plaque as it is presented to the crowd. Later tonight, that plaque will join Gordon's and Henderson's as the Hall of Fame's curatorial staff will hang them with the other 286 in the Hall of Fame Gallery.
2:29 p.m. The crowd breaks out into a chant of "Let's Go Red Sox!"
2:36 p.m. Where was Jim when he received the call that he had been elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame? Watching The Young and the Restless.
Jim thanks the Boston Red Sox, with whom he spent his entire major league career. Not only did he help lead them to the AL pennant in his rookie season, but from 1977-1979 he became the only player in big league history to record 35 home runs, 100 RBIs, and 200 hits for three consecutive seasons. One of those years, 1978, he hit 46 home runs and drove in 139 on his way to earning the AL MVP.
2:41 p.m. Another standing ovation for Rice as he concludes his speech, stating that he cannot think of a better place to be – with his fans and with the greatest living ballplayers.
Now, it's time for Rickey. The fans here have been waiting for this since the announcement in December.
2:46 p.m. The cap on Rickey's plaque? The A's of course. The inscription on his plaque begins "Faster than a speeding bullet…." As Selig reads off all nine of Rickey's team, a loud ovation from the crowd as the Red Sox are mentioned. Now: Rickey takes the podium.
2:47 p.m. Any special memories of watching Rickey play? Send them along!
2:51 p.m. Rickey says that he played so long (25 seasons!) because of his love for the game of baseball. Apparently his dream was to play football for the Oakland Raiders, but his mother was afraid he would get hurt and told him to play baseball. As Rickey points out, mothers always know best.
2:53 p.m. Wondering who Rickey looked up to as a kid? Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Reggie Jackson. Three of them are up on the stage behind him today.
2:54 p.m. Rickey's nine teams ties him for second place among Hall of Famers with Goose Gossage and Hoyt Wilhelm. Anyone know who's first?
2:59 p.m. The answer to that previous question: Dan Brouthers.
Rickey's take on his nine teams – it was a great chance to meet fans all across the country. Henderson: "It is the fan who make the game fun. To the fans: Thank you, thank you, thank you, for all your support over the years."
3:01 p.m. Rickey closes his speech by stating how humbling it is to now be considered in a class of the greatest players of all time. He receives a prolonged ovation from the fans.
3:03 p.m. Don't go anywhere folks – we have plenty of ceremony left, and we haven't yet heard from Tony Kubek or Nick Peters! Now on the big screen – a video of Stan Musial (who could not be in attendance tonight) playing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" on his harmonica.
3:09 p.m. On the stage now we have George Grande and Billy Williams remembering 1969, as it is the 40th anniversary of that season. An incredible season perhaps best remembered for the Miracle Mets.
Billy Williams is the spokesman for the Hall of Fame's Membership Program. Billy thanks all Hall of Fame members out there for supporting the Hall and helping to keep baseball's history and tradition alive here in Cooperstown.
Now Don Sutton takes the podium to introduce this year's Ford C. Frick Award winner, Tony Kubek. Sutton points out that his first day as a broadcaster was spent sitting alongside Kubek.
3:15 p.m. Tony's turn. He points out Moose Skowron, his first road roommate, who is sitting just to the right of stage today.
Of course, Kubek played baseball himself, for nine seasons with the New York Yankees, making four All-Star games.
3:24 p.m. Tony speaks about how the game of baseball has pioneered so many of the changes in American culture, drawing particular attention to the racism and bigotry that Jackie Robinson and Hank Aaron overcame during their playing careers, breaking down barriers in the process. This draws a loud ovation from the crowd.
As a member of the Hall's Education department, I'm glad to see Tony mention this. At the Hall we try to teach our visitors about how baseball has been at the forefront of many changes in American culture.
3:29 p.m. Kubek closes and Jane Forbes Clark returns to the podium to present the J.G. Taylor Spink Award winner, Nick Peters. Peters covered the Giants for 47 years, more years than any sports journalist in history. David O'Brien, President of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, comes to the podium to introduce Peters.
3:32 p.m. Here's a good Rice memory:
3:32 p.m. [Comment From Scott Downer]
I was at a game in Cleveland in 1979. I saw Rice his a pitch out of old Municipal Stadium that cleared the center field wall, I'm going to say 410. The ball never got over 20 feet off the ground. I've never seen a shot lie this one. It must have gotten out in two seconds. Just a blast.
3:37 p.m. Nick Peters talks about listening to Red Sox games on the radio on Sunday drives with the family. His idol? Ted Williams naturally. Peters then recalls how he learned how to do math through computing batting averages and other statistics. Sounds kind of like the Batter Up math unit that the Hall of Fame uses to teach kids across the country using video-conferencing technology
3:42 p.m. Nick Peter's closes by pointing out that he was able to do something he loved without every having to go too far from home or looking for another job. While he laments that the Giants never won a World Series in his 47 years covering them, he also points out that the A's won 4 of the 6 they played in during that span.
With that, the ceremony concludes! The rain held off. One last round of applause for the class of 2009.
3:48 p.m. So don't forget to get the 2009 Hall of Fame Weekend on your calendar now, the last weekend in July as always!
It's never too early to start thinking ahead to next year. On this year's ballot, Andre Dawson received 67% of the vote, with Bert Blyleven receiving 62.7%, and Roberto Alomar will be on the ballot for the first time.
3:50 p.m. The weekend isn't over yet, as Jim Rice and Rickey Henderson will be back here tomorrow for a special Legends Series interview on the Induction Stage.
I think it's about time for me to sign off. But before I do I'd like to thank you all for joining me this afternoon, and hope you enjoyed the coverage! Don't forget to log onto www.baseballhall.org for more coverage of Hall of Fame Weekend 2009!
Stephen Light is manager of museum programs at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.
Lloyd Monsen: left wing and pitcher at the 1952 Olympics
By Tom Shieber
We're unveiling a new exhibit titled Olympic Baseball. As you might guess, it is a celebration of the history of baseball in the Olympics. What you may not know is that our national pastime has been played at the Olympics for almost 100 years, starting with a pair of exhibition games at the 1912 Games in Stockholm.
Baseball was also played at the 1936 Games in Berlin, the '56 Games in Melbourne, Australia, and the '64 Games in Tokyo. But perhaps the most surprising and obscure appearance of baseball in the Olympics took place at the 1952 Games in Helsinki, Finland.
That summer, the Olympics featured an exhibition of pes�pallo, a popular Finnish game adapted from our game of baseball. Famed sportswriter and future J.G. Taylor Spink Award-winner Red Smith witnessed the game and wrote: "[Pes�pallo] was invented by Lauri Pihkala, a professor who wears a hearing aid and believes his game was modeled on baseball. Somebody must have described baseball to him when his battery was dead."
Apparently, the local Olympic organizing committee invited the U.S. to play a game of baseball (the original game, not the Finnish version) against a champion team from Finland. Walter Giesler, coach of the U.S. soccer team and a future Soccer Hall of Famer, was tasked with organizing the baseball team. With his soccer team quickly eliminated from the Olympics, bowing to the Italians, 8-0 ,on July 16, he had a surplus of top athletes with little to do. Why not play baseball?
The U.S. played a practice game against Venezuela on July 29, posting a 14-6 victory, then followed that up with the main contest against the Finns, a 19-1 drubbing played at Helsinki Football Stadium on Aug. 5.
As lead curator of the exhibit, I wanted to make sure that we featured artifacts from each Olympiad in which baseball was played. The one hole was the Helsinki contests. I immediately set to work trying to track down some of the soccer players from the 1952 U.S. team in hopes that they might provide some leads.
Finding out who was on the U.S. soccer squad was no problem, as the team is well-documented and featured quite a few "name" players. Besides Coach Giesler, the team featured five other future Soccer Hall of Famers: Charlie Colombo, Harry Keough, Lloyd Monsen, Willy Schaller and John Souza.
Of these greats, four — Colombo, Giesler, Keough and Souza — were members of the famed U.S. soccer team that stunned England, 1-0, at the 1950 World Cup in Brazil. The victory is considered by many to be the greatest moment in U.S. soccer history … and the worst in the storied history of English soccer.
Working my way alphabetically through the list of six Hall of Famers, I turned my attention to Colombo. Like many others on the Olympic soccer team, Colombo hailed from St. Louis, a city that has long been a hotbed of soccer talent. Like baseball legends Yogi Berra and Joe Garagiola, Colombo grew up in St. Louis' Italian neighborhood known as "Dago Hill," today referred to as simply "The Hill." But Colombo passed away over 20 years ago, so I turned my attention to Harry Keough.
Harry was, and still is, a legend in St. Louis. Not only did he win a national junior championship, play on the 1950 U.S. team that toppled England and participate in two Olympic Games (1952 and '56), but he also went on to coach the St. Louis University Billikens to five NCAA men's soccer championships. Fortunately, I was able to contact his son Ty, a great player in his own right as well as a television soccer analyst. Unfortunately, my timing was off. Ty informed me that his father was out of the country.
Next: Lloyd Monsen.
Monsen, who played left wing for U.S. Olympic soccer team, was born and raised in Brooklyn. Some cursory research led me to believe that he might still be living in the area, but in checking on the Web, I found that not only was there no "Lloyd Monsen" listed in Brooklyn, there was no one by that name in the entire state of New York. I decided to "go for it" and searched for any Lloyd Monsen in the country … and found just one!
I made the cold call to Clearwater, Fla., and when a man answered the phone, I introduced myself and asked if this was Lloyd Monsen.
Was this the same Lloyd Monsen who played soccer at the 1952 Olympics in Helsinki?
Did he know anything about the baseball games that were played that summer in Finland?
"Not only did I play in those games, I was the starting pitcher."
Unbelievable! Lloyd was, and is, as sharp as a tack and went on to describe the baseball games in surprising detail. He recalled that U.S. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. threw out the first pitch before the game against Finland, and noted that the host country supplied all the baseball equipment.
Thankfully, Lloyd kept quite a few souvenirs from his Olympic experience in Finland, and he has graciously loaned us the patch from his team jacket along with his official Olympic ID for our exhibit. These wonderful artifacts are just two of over 50 that are featured in our Olympic Baseball exhibit, now open on the second floor of the Museum.
Tom Shieber is senior curator of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.


text:
One-on-One With the Chopped All-Stars Season 3 Champion
by Sara Levine in Food Network Chef, Shows, May 5th, 2013Earlier on FN Dish, we broke down the final round of All-Stars, including an interview with the runner-up (spoiler alert).
If you missed the show and recorded it, don't read any further — FN Dish is about to break down the episode and chat with the grand champion.
The Baskets:
Appetizer: Soft-shell crabs, crunchy peanut butter, sake and sea beans
Entree: Suckling goat, broccoli rabe, farro and cheddar-filled pretzels
Dessert: Freeze-dried grapes, marrow bones, Marcona almonds and cannoli cream
Elimination Details:
Appetizer: Sunny Anderson
Entree: Laila Ali
Dessert: Gavin Kaysen
Winner: Scott Conant
Judges: Aarón Sánchez, Geoffrey Zakarian and Marcus Samuelsson
Scott Conant is the Season 3 Chopped All-Stars Champion! The Chopped judge and Scarpetta chef/owner admitted he was hesitant to put himself at the mercy of the Chopping Block, but after two seasons of watching his fellow judges in the ring, he went for it and prevailed. The road wasn't easy. Scott bested his pals Marc Murphy, Alex Guarnaschelli and Amanda Freitag in a heated judges' round; then he moved on to face fierce celebrity home cook Laila Ali, Food Network mainstay Sunny Anderson and Bocuse d'Or prodigy Gavin Kaysen in the finale. After his victory, Scott chatted with FN Dish about moving from the judges' table into the Chopped Kitchen, his charity and who really finally convinced him to compete.
Ted at one point said that your wife convinced you to do Chopped All-Stars. What was her winning argument?
SC: Her winning argument was pretty much, 'What are you afraid of?' It's a challenge and it's outside my comfort zone. I'm happy I did it, of course. Seeing my daughter and wife out there after I won, I felt especially appreciative.
Did you feel confident going into your second battle, having prevailed in the judges' round?
SC: In the appetizer round, I finished that dish in the first round with about eight minutes left. I was feeling really good at that point, thinking to myself: 'I'm ahead of the clock. I have time to go. I'm good.' I was really pleased with that course. The problem was that I burned my tongue early on, so I couldn't taste. I was driving blind! I had to rely on instinct and touch and feel and sight. I wasn't sure about the salt content. The good news is that I was able to throw in those sea beans, and those have so much salt that I didn't have to worry about it that much.
Marcus said your first two plates were flawless. He said it was the best-tasting goat he ever had in his life. Safe to say that dessert was your weak point today?
SC: Absolutely. I was so upset with that course. It's not that it was bad; it just wasn't as nuanced as the other dishes I cooked today. I was upset with myself. I walk away from this thinking about that dessert course and how I could have made it better.
Were you still feeling confident after that round, or did you expect to see your dish on the Chopping Block?
SC: I was not feeling confident. I expected that, if things were somewhat equal moving into the dessert round, that dessert pushed me over the edge and Gavin would be the last man standing, so to speak.
What's it like to be judged by your peers, your friends?
SC: I love those guys. It's great because I know they were going to be honest with me. If I made a mistake, they were going to say it. I'm really proud that I did them proud, and I'm proud to align myself with such a great organization, Keep Memory Alive — and then on top of it, to be able to pull out the win and bring them a check for $50,000. It's amazing when things all line up. I feel really blessed.
More From Scott Conant:
- Scott competed for Keep Memory Alive
Similar Posts
PHOTOS: Guy Fieri Makes Nachos in a Trashcan (and They're Amazing!)
Browse an entire photo gallery to see the making of Guy's over-the-top nachos assembled in a trashcan....Comments (
40 )-
impartial should not include finding ways ,anyway, that would help Scott win. he himself felt that he was going to lose but good thing the judges were there to save him
We are not complaining just giving our opinion just like you. I like Scott and wanted him to win; however, he did no do a good job of cooking in the competition. In fact, he was shocked himself since he knew he had lost after that dog pile dessert.
We are not sore losers! I believe is called " fairness"s. As viewers we are entitled to our own opinions without being called names. We all watched an hour of Chop like you did and the outcome different for those of us who saw the dishes. I like Scott and wanted him to win; however, he did not hit the mark. Maybe an off night but he should not have won the 50k and crowned the champ.
The competition was not based on the charity selected but their skills as cooks. All the charities selected were good causes and the reason you feel the way you do is because a family member passed away and we are sorry about that. .
We all understand your feelings about the goat; however, there will always be something in the basket that is unacceptable to viewers. What did you think about the competition itself? Fairness, skill and credibility an issue worth addressing .
i'm sick of diners, diners and diners……..rather see chopped 24/7

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I have taught for about 11 years and taught guided reading for 10 of the eleven years. When I first started teaching, many teachers were actually still doing whole group reading instruction with novel studies. While I think that novel studies definitely have a place in the reader's workshop, I feel that students must be instructed in small groups to meet their individual needs as well. Working with students with disabilities for the last three years has done nothing but reinforce that belief. It has also made my teaching of reading "bag of tricks" much larger- I had no choice.
When I taught third grade I always felt like I really needed to make sure my students could read and comprehend ALL texts because many teachers feel like in fourth grade "students no longer are learning to read, but reading to learn" (I hate this phrase and philosophy by the way, but I will spare everyone my soapbox! When I heard a principal say it I about fell over).


text:
Updated on
September 20, 2009,
asks from
Troy, MI
August 21, 2009
Dishwasher Leaving Grit on Dishes.!! Please Help
We moved in to our new house not to long ago and I noticed early on that the dishwasher doesnt do the greatest job but it was working.. in the last 2-3 months I have noticed grit left of the dishes and the dishes not very clean..last night I ran the dishwasher twice and the dishes were still dirty...any suggestions?? the dwasher is only 4 yrs old so Im not sure whats up..it came with the house its not top of the line but still a good brand...thanks for your help and advice
Featured Answers
A.S. answers from Detroit on August 22, 2009
I'm no expert but my dishwasher was doing the same thing - it wasn't old either. In the end, I called an appliance expert and they found that there was a blockage. Once it was unblocked i had to run the cycle a few times with just vinegar in the washer. Now it's fine - good luck - Alison
More Answers
C.M. answers from Detroit on August 22, 2009
There might ba a filter that needs to be cleaned. Since you probably don't have the user guide, you might go to the manufacturer's website to see if there is one posted. My dishwasher came with the house too. There is a filter in the bottom that can be removed and washed. It gets pretty yucky and then I have the same problem that you have. Stuff gets in it and just gets whirled around onto the dishes. It helps when I clean it. Good luck!
1 mom found this helpful
B.C. answers from Detroit on August 22, 2009
check to see if there is a kink or blockage where the water is supposed to come out sometimes it stops the sprayer from working well.I've had that happen
1 mom found this helpful
P.L. answers from Grand Rapids on August 22, 2009
this is advice from our repair man...Purchase a bottle of dishwasher cleanser (I forgot the name of the product, but it is available at Meijers) and you put it in the dishwasher and run it through empty. It should clean all the old gunk and built-up detergent out of the washer. Also, be sure to run your hot water in your sink tap before you start your dishwasher each time. It takes the washer too long to heat up the water on it's own. He also told me that most people put too much detergent in the cup dispenser and it just ends up getting built-up in the washer. You should only fill about 1/3 of the cup with detergent. Hope that helps you.
L.S. answers from Detroit on August 22, 2009
Hello S.,
I had an situation where my hotwater tank was not hot enough and then I had a dishwasher once that I had to run the hot water in the kitchen sink until it was hot before I started the dishwasher.
Hope this helps, L. S.
K.A. answers from Saginaw on August 22, 2009
WHen it`s empty-pour a half gallon of vin. in the bottom and run through. That should do the trick!
M.A. answers from Detroit on August 22, 2009
Did you check to see if something fell into the bottom and may be blocking the arm from turning? Give the spray arm a good spin. How is the water pressure? Is the drain hose properly installed? It should go out and make a loop up and over and into the drain or garbage disposal and be higher than the level of the exit drain hole, to prevent backups. Just a few suggestions to check- or maybe it's just time for a new dishwasher ;-). Also, did you know that the government outlawed phosphates in Laundry products, but allows them in dishwasher detergents? Brilliant, huh? Shaklee makes an awesome dishwasher powder without phosphates or chlorine. It is enzymes, eco-friendly, and my dishes sparkle! It also won't etch your glassware! Give me a holler if I can help.
Take care,
K.W. answers from Detroit on September 20, 2009
It may just need a little cleaning. Put a couple tablespoon of tank (yes the drink powder) in the dispenser and let it run.
We were having similar problem and it cleared it right up.
K.M. answers from Detroit on August 22, 2009
Have a service guy come look at it maybe it needs to be cleaned out or a parts broke. Also consider a new dishwasher.


text:
What does PNE mean in US Government?
This page is about the meanings of the acronym/abbreviation/shorthand PNE in the Governmental field in general and in the US Government terminology in particular.
Find a translation for PNE in other languages:
Select another language:
What does PNE mean?
- PNe(Abbreviation)
- planetary nebulae
Discuss this PNE abbreviation with the community:
Use the citation below to add this abbreviation to your bibliography:
"PNE." Abbreviations.com. STANDS4 LLC, 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015. <http://www.abbreviations.com/term/172055>.
PNE also stands for:
- Copene Petroquimica do Nordest, S. A.
- Northern Philadelphia Airport, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania/ Wilmington, Delaware
- Pacific National Exhibition
- Pacific Northern Environmental Corporation
- Pantyhose Nylon Emporium
... and 16 more »
Nearby & related abbreviations:
Alternative search:
- Search Petition Number Extension on Amazon
- Search Petition Number Extension on Google


text:
Wolverine Worldwide To Present At The ICR XChange 15th Annual Investor Conference
ROCKFORD, Mich., Jan. 2, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Wolverine Worldwide (NYSE: WWW) Chairman and CEO Blake W. Krueger, and CFO and Senior Vice President Don Grimes will present at the ICR XChange Annual Investor Conference at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida on January 16, 2013.
The management presentation, which will include information on Wolverine's operations, is scheduled to begin at 8:25 a.m. Eastern Time, and will be available via live webcast at the Company's website, www.wolverineworldwide.com. Replays of the presentation will be available at www.wolverineworldwide.com.
With a commitment to service and product excellence, Wolverine World Wide, Inc. is one of the world's leading marketers of branded casual, active lifestyle, work, outdoor sport, athletic, children's and uniform footwear and apparel. The Company's portfolio of highly recognized brands includes: Merrell®, Sperry Top-Sider®, Hush Puppies®, Saucony®, Wolverine®, Keds®, Stride Rite®, Sebago®, Cushe®, Chaco®, Bates®, HYTEST®, and Soft Style®. The Company also is the global footwear licensee of popular brands including CAT®, Harley-Davidson® and Patagonia®. The Company's products are carried by leading retailers in the U.S. and globally in approximately 200 countries and territories. For additional information, please visit our website, www.wolverineworldwide.com.
SOURCE Wolverine World Wide, Inc.
Check Out Our Best Services for Investors
Action Alerts PLUS
Portfolio Manager Jim Cramer and Director of Research Jack Mohr reveal their investment tactics while giving advanced notice before every trade.
Product Features:
- $2.5+ million portfolio
- Large-cap and dividend focus
- Intraday trade alerts from Cramer
Quant Ratings
Access the tool that DOMINATES the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500.
Product Features:
- Buy, hold, or sell recommendations for over 4,300 stocks
- Unlimited research reports on your favorite stocks
- A custom stock screener
Stocks Under $10
David Peltier uncovers low dollar stocks with serious upside potential that are flying under Wall Street's radar.
Product Features:
- Model portfolio
- Stocks trading below $10
- Intraday trade alerts
Check Out Our Best Services for Investors
Dividend Stock Advisor
David Peltier identifies the best of breed dividend stocks that will pay a reliable AND significant income stream.
Product Features:
- Diversified model portfolio of dividend stocks
- Updates with exact steps to take - BUY, HOLD, SELL
Trifecta Stocks
Every recommendation goes through 3 layers of intense scrutinyquantitative, fundamental and technical analysisto maximize profit potential and minimize risk.
Product Features:
- Model Portfolio
- Intra Day Trade alerts
- Access to Quant Ratings
Options Profits
Our options trading pros provide over 100 monthly option trading ideas and strategies to help you become a well-seasoned trader.
Product Features:
- Actionable options commentary and news
- Real-time trading community


text:
Two years ago, Missouri eliminated the corporate franchise tax for thousands of small businesses when it raised the "outstanding shares and surplus" threshold amount used to calculate the annual tax from $1 million to $10 million. Now, the Missouri franchise tax will be eliminated for all businesses by 2016.
Under legislation signed by Gov. Jay Nixon on April 26 (S.B. 19), the corporate franchise tax rate will gradually be reduced as follows over a five-year period beginning in 2012 until the tax is completely phased out in 2016:
Tax Year Corporate Franchise Tax Rate
2011 1/30 of 1 percent
2012 1/37 of 1 percent
2013 1/50 of 1 percent
2014 1/75 of 1 percent
2015 1/150 of 1 percent
2016 Tax Eliminated
In addition, the legislation also caps corporate franchise tax liabilities for tax years beginning after 2010 at the amount of each corporation's tax liability for the 2010 tax year (i.e., a company's franchise tax liability is limited to no more than what it owed in the 2010 tax year). Therefore, if a corporation had no franchise tax liability in 2010 because the it was not doing business in the state or did not exist, then its annual franchise tax liability will be limited to the amount of its corporate franchise tax liability for its first full taxable year of existence.
According to Gov. Nixon, eliminating the franchise tax will "encourage businesses to expand their operations and create jobs in Missouri, boosting economy and making state more competitive for years to come."


text:
Pearl Strands Lounge Dog Bed |
sku: JAX-LNG-P-PEARL
Jax and Bones Pearl Strands Dog Bed. Simple and sophisticated, this bed is a comfy complimentary piece. Designed like a sofa, this signature lounge bed is the designer's most popular shape. Guaranteed to be a cozy spot for your pup to nap, whether they like to curl up or stretch out. Its bolstered sides and center pillow unzip and are 100% machine washable for easy maintenance. Stuffed with hypo-allergenic eco-friendly fiber, this bed is sure to keep your pup well rested and harm-free. Features: - High quality durable - 100% machine washable cotton blend - Hypo-allergenic green fiber filling - Made in the U.S.A. Sizing: S: 24 in. L x 18 in. W x 7 in. H M: 32 in. L x 27 in. W x 10 in. H L: 39 in. L x 32 in. W x 10 in. H XL: 48 in. L x 40 in. W x 12 in. H Depending on availability, this item may take up to 21 days to ship. Shipping Note: Due to weight or size, this item may be subject to an additional shipping charge calculated during checkout. |
$128.00 to $314.00
Your pet may also like


text:
Before Ryu, Apathy and Scoop DeVille release their Sophomore album, DJ Cheapshot puts together a mixtape version w/ the same name. Tracklist/download link after the jump.
DOWNLOAD: Get Busy Committee - Opening Ceremony (Mixtape) [via]
Posted in Mixtapes/Albums | Tags: apathy, dj cheapshot, get busy committee, ryu, scoop deville
Fuckin dope, I love GBC. No comments on this??? Yall niggas sleepin...
Yup they show r
GBC, how can you not like this shit!? This shit bangs, goes hard and all the other things your girlfriends like about me.
word to the first comment ha
this whole mixtape bangs!...i didnt skip one track
boys and girls is an awesome song


text:
Experimenting with Yucca
by Dana Angelo White in Healthy Recipes, June 5, 2009
Mashed, baked, sautéed or fried — yucca is as versatile as potatoes. I decided to give this cool tuber a try after it popped up on a few Food Network shows and in my local grocery store. Find out how you can satisfy your starchy cravings with a side of yucca-fied fries.
What Is Yucca?
Yucca (a.k.a. cassava) is a long, cylindrical root with tough brown skin and rock-hard white flesh. It's harvested in winter months and stores very well in a cool, dark place. Yucca typically comes from southern parts of North America and Central and South America, and it's common in regional dishes. It's been around for awhile; some say farmers cultivated it as early as 2500 B.C.!
Nutrition Info
Like potatoes and other tubers, yucca is full of starch and contains vitamin C (about 70% of your daily needs in a cup), B vitamins, thiamin and folate. One cup of raw yucca has 330 calories, 1 gram of fat, 4 grams of fiber and 78 grams of carbohydrates. Despite being rich in nutrients, this veggie actually has a very mild flavor. One big warning: You have to peel and cook this tuber before eating it — it contains toxic substances when raw.
What To Do with Yucca
You can cook with yucca just like you would with potatoes. When peeling and cutting, use a sharp knife and a sturdy surface – these babies are hard! Once boiled, you can then grill, sauté, mash, fry or puree the pieces. Yucca chips, which are made by thinly slicing and frying, have a sweeter flavor than potato chips. But keep in mind that they're fried — eat only a handful. Try pairing up your yucca with lime, onion, cilantro or oregano for extra flavor without extra fat.
In my yucca "experiment," I made baked yucca fries. You just slice raw yucca into thin strips, season with oil, salt and pepper and roast in a 425-degree oven until golden and tender. They were delicious, but definitely starchy – a few fries is all you need. Lighten your cooking load by using bags of frozen yucca from your local grocery store. They're already peeled, chopped and blanched, which makes them the perfect time-saving option when cooking for a crowd.
You might see tapioca flour at the market sometimes. This powdered starch, a common thickening agent used in soups, stews and pie filling, comes from its root.
Oh and I was just browsing the TV listings. Yucca is one of the secret ingredients on Food Network's Chopped on June 6 (airs at 3pm). I'm curious to see what they do with it.
- Yucca recipes to try:
- Yucca with Cuban Mojo
- Mashed Yucca
- Yucca Pancakes
- Cassava Cream & Crab Soup
TELL US: Have you tried yucca? What's your favorite way to eat it?
Similar Posts
Why We're Mad About Maitakes
Maitake mushrooms are showing up all over restaurant menus thanks to more than their meaty flavor!...Comments (
42 )-
my favorite way to eat yucca is how my columbian step-dad prepares it. he serves it in baked chunks (like potatoes) with a sauce over it (i think he calls it ahi) made up of ground peanuts, water, red pepper chunks, and chunks of avacado. it is so delicious, and so creamy you would sware there's cream in it, but it's just the peanutes ground to a sauce with water.
Actually, this is more than an experiment. The meal you presented is an advanced, perfect recipe. Yucca recipes are rare – there are more chicken recipes than Yucca. But fewer number of recipes give us more room to experiment and develop outstanding recipes. You did well with the warning – Yucca is potential poisonous. It contains the deadly poison cyanide. But once it is cooked, its safe.
OK..The questions and or comments I make will make it so very obvious that I do not know what the Tucca plant looks like, yet I do enjoy those Yucca Chips from Trader Joe's and would like to find a way to make these myself without all the salt and oil I know that is "thrown" in while proessing these chips.
I liive in Arizona and I have so many many Yucca Plants (which are large green plants with different color flowers that "shoot up" from within and outside of these beautiful plants.
Where do I find or how do I find the 'right' Yucca plant to eat?? Are the ones in my front and back yard (red, yellow, orange etc. in color-flowers) edible? LOL Please know I am naive as to where to find this ''food' i.e. plant, as the question I jiust asked certainly shows this LOL.-
My dear friend, the confusion starts from the fact that two plants have similar names "yucca"; which is as I understand it an agave type plant, and "yuca" which is a totally different plat and that its roots are in a way, like potato (not exactly like potato, just the closer thing I can think of )lol
I jjust LOVE the taste of Yucca Chips and have had nothing else to compare the chips with, as I have never tried to find "Yucca' to use in receipes because all I thought was it was some type of root which made YUMMY chips. Any ideas or info on where to shop for Yucca would truly be a blessing and many thanks go out to those whom do think I am sme kind oif "nut," for asking such…awww…corny questions…Thanks ALL and Peace
Depending on where you live, you can find yuca in the frozen food section of some supermarkets, (I recommended this way, because I find it to be the best way to guarantee the quality of the product) usually its imported from Costa Rica. It comes already pealed and ready to cook… still lol…
Hi Susie – The edible portion of Yucca is the thick root. I recommend getting them from the store –or maybe a local farm if they're available near you just to be on the safe side.
I live near a vietnamese store that serves little wheat free dairy free cakes. only 4 ingredients yucca coconut milk, mung bean (supposedly mashed and sugar. i have yet to whip up these little cakes but i have severe allergies, and kidney stone and i swear by my yucca topped with creme of coconut! yum!
It's Yuca, Yucca is a different plant
What is the difference in the yucca and the yuca?
Thanks for telling me it was poison when raw. I just dug up some yucca and wondering if it was the same as in the store I was going to cook it. I did taste of it raw and it was sweet and tasted good. But I will not do that again if it is poison. Thanks again you may have saved my life! Ha! But very true. Janie


text:
Clue: Clear Eyes competitor
We have 1 answer for the clue Clear Eyes competitor. See the results below.
Possible Answers:
Related Clues:
- Tetrahydrozoline brand
- Blur remover
- "Gets the red out" sloganeer
- Redness remover
- Johnson & Johnson brand
- Johnson Johnson brand
- Drops for high people?
- Red-eye remedy
Last Seen In:
- Netword - November 07, 2013
Found an answer for the clue Clear Eyes competitor that we don't have? Then please submit it to us so we can make the clue database even better!


text:
Loving your new mix stu! why you no post on forum? big up yourself
yo man. a little something here that may well be up your street http://dnbforum.com/showthread.php/1...36#post1502036
easy mate, nice one for the feedback, deleted that thread as i want record another one! gonna actually plan this one. Nice one mate
Have you still got that critical/modulations mix in the pipeline?? hope so
sorry mate, found out my inbox was full. it's cleared now
haha i'm pm'ing you again standard, so you can vouch for cutting vinyl's quality? tried to find the original thread to no avail, have only heard good things tho (other than the cutting youtube rips thing)
yeah there's a 'create an mp3 version' button in the advanced tab in iTunes, converts it to 320 or thereabouts. hmm yeah i think it's the weight behind it, not as heavy as the other even tho they are on the same setting you gots to come sou:r man, lineup is hench! gonna have a moment on the dancefloor if calibre plays gabriel haha, will get emotional
Drum & Bass Forum
Liquid Drum & Bass crew
murder TANMUSHIMUSHI


text: MEDFORD, Ore. — Swimmers had to wait just a bit longer before they could hit the pool this summer because of the make-up school day in the Medford School District. This is the third year the Jackson Aquatic Center has been the only public pool open after the Hawthorne Aquatic Center closed down. Since then the city has done it's best to balance swim lessons, open swims and events. As a result there are 24 percent fewer swim lessons available even with one of the pools permanently closed.The Jackson Aquatic Center see about 28,000 visitors annually and officials say it takes a lot of work to keep the place up and running.


text:
Northwestern University Law Review : Colloquy : 2008 : SteinmanAn Ounce of Prevention: Solving Some Unforeseen Problems with the Proposed Amendments to Rule 56 and the Federal Summary Judgment ProcessAdam N. Steinman[*] In 1986, the Supreme Court decided three cases—Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Celotex v. Catrett, and Matsushita Electric v. Zenith Radio[1] —that transformed summary judgment from "a disfavored procedural shortcut"[2] to a central feature of federal civil litigation.[3] Summary judgment today is so important that federal courts have cited the three decisions in the 1986 trilogy more frequently than any judicial decisions in the history of American jurisprudence.[4] For the first time since the trilogy (and indeed since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure came into effect seventy years ago), the Civil Rules Advisory Committee has proposed a major revision to Rule 56's summary judgment process.[5] The aim of the Committee's proposal is laudable: "to improve the procedures for making and opposing summary judgment motions, and to facilitate the judge's work in resolving them."[6] It accomplishes this goal by adopting a "point-counterpoint" process, similar to procedures that have been used in several federal districts via local rule.[7] Under this process, the summary judgment movant must file a "statement"—separate from the motion and brief—that "concisely identifies in separately numbered paragraphs only those material facts that cannot be genuinely disputed and entitle the movant to summary judgment."[8] The nonmovant must then file a "response"—separate from its brief opposing summary judgment—that accepts or disputes each of the facts in the movant's statement, and may also state "additional material facts that preclude summary judgment."[9] The movant must file a "reply"—separate from its reply brief—that accepts or disputes any additional facts stated by the nonmovant.[10] In proposing this procedure, the Committee has wisely stated that "no change should be attempted in the summary judgment standard or in the assignment of burdens between movant and nonmovant," preferring "to leave these matters to continuing evolution under the 1986 Supreme Court decisions that have guided practice for the last twenty years and more."[11] This Essay identifies several problems with the proposed text that could have unfortunate
consequences and contravene the Committee's intent. In particular, the proposed text can
be read to make significant changes to the summary judgment standard and the burdens
on litigants at the summary judgment phase.
At the very least, it may inadvertently dictate questionable approaches
to aspects of summary judgment procedure that have yet to be directly addressed
by the Supreme Court. Although the
Committee's stated intent to retain the existing standard and burdens might
spur courts to interpret the new text to avoid these ramifications, the safer
course is to revise the Committee's proposal before it is officially transmitted
in spring 2009. Because the proposed
amendments affect so critical an aspect
of civil litigation as summary judgment, an ounce of prevention is especially
well-advised. Part I of this Essay examines proposed Rule 56(c)(4), which addresses how parties must support the factual positions they express in their statement, response, and reply. Part II examines proposed Rule 56(c)(5), which authorizes parties to challenge the admissibility of their opponent's summary judgment material. Part III points out a minor ambiguity in the proposed rule concerning the standard for evaluating additional material facts asserted in the nonmovant's response. Detailed suggestions for revising the proposed amendments appear in the Appendix to this Essay. I. Proposed Rule 56(c)(4): How Parties Must Support Their Factual Positions Proposed Rule
56(c)(4) sets forth how litigants must support their factual positions at the
summary judgment phase.[12] It is
a key feature of the proposed point-counterpoint process, particularly because
the court may confine its inquiry to those "materials called to its attention"
under this provision (although it retains authority to consider other materials
if it so chooses).[13] There
are a number of ways that courts might read proposed Rule 56(c)(4) as changing
the summary judgment standard and burdens, contrary to the Committee's intent.[14] As an initial
matter, the proposed amendments may inadvertently modify the summary judgment
burden that applies to the party (typically the plaintiff) who will bear the
burden of production at trial. The text
provides that parties may support their factual positions by "showing . . . that
an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact."[15] A
plaintiff who bears the burden of production at trial, however, should never be
able to support its factual position simply by showing that the defendant will not be able to produce
admissible evidence to support its view of the facts. That is precisely the argument that the
Supreme Court rejected in Celotex. If the defendant can show that the
plaintiff will lack sufficient evidence to satisfy the plaintiff's burden of
production at trial, the defendant need not "support its motion with affidavits
or other similar materials negating
the opponent's claim."[16]
The proposed rule could even allow a plaintiff to support
summary judgment in its favor simply
by showing that the defendant "cannot
produce admissible evidence" at trial.[17] This
would be a drastic change to current summary judgment burdens. Even if the defendant (who ordinarily does
not bear the burden of production for the elements of a plaintiff's claim) will
have no admissible evidence it can
use at trial, the defendant should prevail as long as the plaintiff fails to
meet its burden of production. The
defendant's lack of evidence—standing alone—surely cannot be a sufficient basis
for awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff. The proposed Advisory Committee Note correctly recognizes
that only "a party who does not have
the trial burden of production" should be able to rely on a showing that the
adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence at trial.[18] This limitation, however, does not appear in
the text of the proposed rule. With so
many judicial adherents to textualist methods of interpretation,[19] one cannot be sure that
clarifications appearing in the Advisory Committee Note or elsewhere in the
drafting history will be an adequate solution.[20] Finally, proposed Rule 56(c)(4) might be read to inadvertently reduce the burden on defendants who file "no-evidence" summary judgment motions (the kind endorsed in Celotex) that seek to show that the plaintiff will lack sufficient evidence to meet its burden of production at trial.[21] Under the Committee's proposal, a movant can support its statement that a fact cannot be genuinely disputed with either "citation to particular parts of materials in the record" or "a showing . . . that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support that fact."[22] The implication is that a no-evidence motion may properly proceed without any citation to materials in the record. While the proposed rule requires the moving party to make a "showing" that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence, it would be a substantial change in current practice to suggest that this showing can be made without supporting record materials. Current Rule 56 authorizes summary judgment only where the lack of a genuine issue is "show[n]" by the record materials.[23] In Celotex, the Supreme Court instructed that even for no-evidence motions, "a party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of . . . identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact."[24] Future courts might avoid these consequences, of course, by reading the proposed rule in conjunction with the Committee's desire not to change the current summary judgment standard or burdens. But it is far from certain that judges would uniformly choose the uncodified intent of the proposal's drafters over the literal text.[25] The best solution, therefore, is to restructure proposed Rule 56(c)(4) before it is finalized. Detailed revisions are suggested in the Appendix to this Essay, but the basic requirements would be: (1) the summary judgment movant must identify in its statement the parts of the record on which it relies to show the absence of a genuine dispute as to any particular fact; and (2) if the nonmovant disputes that fact, it must identify in its response any additional parts of the record on which it relies to show the existence of a genuine dispute, or whether it simply believes that the movant's cited materials fail to establish the lack of a genuine dispute. This approach will identify for the court the parts of the record on which each party relies for each factual issue. Each side's argument as to whether a genuine dispute exists would be left to each side's summary judgment brief, and would be evaluated under the case law as it has evolved since the Supreme Court's 1986 trilogy.[26] II. Proposed Rule 56(c)(5): Admissibility of Summary Judgment Materials Another area of
concern is a new provision that a party "may state that material cited [by the
opposing party] is not admissible in evidence."[27] Perhaps
this language is innocuous; authorizing a party to "state" that material is
inadmissible does not necessarily say anything about what sort of evidence is
or is not admissible for summary judgment purposes.[28] The
danger, however, is that the new provision could be read to require that
summary judgment materials satisfy the admissibility standards that govern at
trial. The proposed Advisory Committee
Note could even be read to suggest such a link.[29] This
issue is particularly important when a defendant files the kind of "no-evidence"
summary judgment motion that the Supreme Court approved in Celotex. For such motions,
the dispositive issue is often whether the plaintiff will have admissible evidence to support its position at
trial. The concern addressed here is
whether the plaintiff's summary judgment materials themselves must be in a form that would be admissible at trial. Lower federal
courts today are divided on this question,[30]
and the Supreme Court has never endorsed the idea that summary judgment
materials must satisfy trial admissibility standards. To the contrary, the Court in Celotex stated: "[w]e do not mean that the nonmoving party must
produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial in order to avoid
summary judgment."[31] At the summary judgment phase, the inquiry is
whether the nonmoving party's materials,
"if reduced to admissible evidence,
would be sufficient to carry [its] burden of proof at trial."[32] The
test is not whether the nonmoving party has presented materials that are already admissible evidence sufficient
to carry its burden of proof at trial. Taken seriously,
the idea that summary judgment materials must satisfy trial admissibility
standards would make it improper for courts to consider sworn affidavits by
potential trial witnesses. A party generally
could not use such an affidavit as proof at trial because it would be
hearsay—an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matters
asserted.[33] Yet Rule 56 has always contemplated use of
such affidavits for summary judgment purposes, to determine whether a genuine
dispute indeed exists.[34] Indeed, subjecting summary judgment materials to trial admissibility standards may fundamentally misperceive how evidentiary rules apply to the summary judgment inquiry. An out-of-court statement might be inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in that statement,[35] but at the summary judgment phase the nonmovant does not need to prove the truth of the matter asserted; she need only show that a genuine dispute exists for trial. If a party indicates an intent to call at trial the individual who made the out-of-court statement—and thus shows that what would otherwise be hearsay can be "reduced to admissible evidence"—then that statement is surely relevant to whether there is a genuine dispute.[36] Of course, the material must be capable of being "reduced" to admissible evidence. If the only witness who might testify to a particular fact at trial is deceased, or incompetent, or barred from testifying due to a privilege or other testimonial bar, then material reflecting what the witness's trial testimony might have been could not create a genuine dispute. The reason, however, is not that such material is inadmissible for summary judgment purposes. The reason is that it would be impossible to reduce that material to admissible evidence at trial and, accordingly, such material cannot show that a genuine dispute exists.[37] Proposed Rule 56(c)(5) should be eliminated. Rule 56 has never contained general language regarding whether particular summary judgment materials are "admissible in evidence."[38] Adding a provision that could be read to impose admissibility requirements that defy the Supreme Court's explicit language in Celotex would contravene the Committee's guiding principle that any change to the existing summary judgment standard or burdens should be left "to continuing evolution under the 1986 Supreme Court decisions that have guided practice for the last twenty years and more."[39] Because the use of trial admissibility standards at the summary judgment phase is an open question under the current version of Rule 56,[40] the safer course is to leave Rule 56 silent on the admissibility issue (as it always has been).[41] III. Assessing Additional Material Facts Identified by the Nonmovant One minor concern
is how the proposed "point-counterpoint" procedure operates when the nonmovant
identifies additional facts in response to a summary judgment motion. Whereas the proposed rule states explicitly
that the movant may assert "only
those material facts that cannot be genuinely disputed," the rule does not
address the standard for evaluating "additional material facts" asserted by the
nonmovant.[42] Because summary judgment is proper only when "there
is no genuine dispute as to any material
a nonmovant's additional fact should be
accepted for summary judgment purposes as long as there is at least a genuine dispute about whether the fact is true. Whether that fact indeed precludes summary
judgment will depend on the circumstances of the case, but the fact cannot be
ignored unless there can be no genuine dispute that the fact is false. To avoid confusion on this issue, the
proposed rule should explicitly recognize the standard for evaluating
additional facts asserted by the nonmovant.
Suggested revisions are set forth in the Appendix. Conclusion The potential problems with the proposed amendments to
Rule 56 can be fixed with fairly modest redrafting. There may be other ways to address these
concerns; the specific revisions suggested in the Appendix are but one possible
approach. The goal of this Essay is
simply to bring these concerns to the forefront, and to thereby encourage
further consideration by the Advisory Committee and the legal community before
the amendments come into effect. The Committee is to be commended for its excellent
work on the proposed amendments, as well as its conscientious efforts to
solicit comment from the legal community in accordance with the Rules Enabling
Act.[44] When
it comes to a crucial issue like the summary judgment process, close vetting of
proposed textual changes is essential to avoid the needless, costly, and time-consuming uncertainty that might otherwise
result. Appendix Following are suggested revisions to the Proposed
Amendments to Rule 56 circulated by the Civil Rules Advisory Committee in its
Report of May 9, 2008, as supplemented June 30, 2008. Suggested additions to the Committee's
proposal are marked in underline font.
Suggested deletions are marked in Proposed Rule 56(a): Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary
Judgment. A party may move for
summary judgment on all or part of a claim or defense. The court should grant summary judgment if
the materials in the record—including depositions, documents, electronically
stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those
made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or
other materials[*] —show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and a
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the
reasons for granting or denying the motion. Proposed Rule 56(c): Procedures. (1) Case-Specific
Procedure. The procedures in this subdivision (c) apply
unless the court orders otherwise in the case. (2) Motion,
Statement, and Brief; Response and Brief; Reply and Brief. (A) Motion, Statement, and Brief. The movant must simultaneously file: (i) a motion that identifies each claim or defense—or the
part of each claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought; (ii) a
separate statement that concisely identifies in separately numbered paragraphs
only those material facts that cannot be genuinely disputed and entitle the
movant to summary judgment; and (iii) a brief of its contentions on the law
or facts. (B) Response and Brief by the Opposing Party. A party opposing summary judgment: (i) must
file a response that, in correspondingly numbered paragraphs, accepts or
disputes—or accepts in part or disputes in part—each fact in the movant's
statement; (ii) may
in the response concisely identify in separately numbered paragraphs additional
material facts—as to which there
is at least a genuine dispute—that preclude summary judgment; and (iii) must file a brief of its contentions
on the law or facts. (C) Reply and Brief. The movant: (i) must
file (ii) may file a reply brief. (3) Accept
or Dispute Generally or for Purposes of Motion Only. A
party may accept or dispute a fact either generally or for purposes of the motion
only. (4) Citing
Support for Statements or Disputes of Fact; Materials Not Cited.[**] (A) Supporting the Movant's Statements of Fact. For each fact the movant identifies in its
Rule 56(c)(2)(A)(ii) statement, the statement must cite to particular parts of
materials in the record that show the absence of a genuine dispute as to this
fact. (B) Disputing the Movant's Statements of Fact. For each fact that the opposing party's
response disputes—or disputes in part—under Rule 56(c)(2)(B)(i), the response
must either: (i) assert that the materials cited in
the movant's statement fail to establish the absence of a genuine dispute as to
this fact; or (ii) cite to particular parts of materials
in the record that show the presence of a genuine dispute as to this fact; or (iii) both (i) and (ii). (C) Supporting the Opposing Party's Additional Statements of Fact. For each additional fact that the opposing
party identifies under Rule 56(c)(2)(B)(ii), the response must cite to
particular parts of materials in the record that show that there is at least a
genuine dispute as to this fact. (D) Disputing the Opposing Party's Additional Statements of Fact. For each additional fact that the movant
rejects—or rejects in part—under Rule 56(c)(2)(C)(i), the movant's reply must
either: (i) assert that the materials cited in the opposing party's
response fail to establish that there is at least a genuine dispute as to that
fact; or (ii) cite to particular parts of materials in the record that
show that there is no genuine dispute that this fact is false; or (iii) both (i) and (ii).
(i) to establish a genuine dispute of
fact; or (ii) to grant summary judgment if it gives
notice under Rule 56(f).
* * * ———— *. Associate
Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law (http://www.law.uc.edu/faculty/steinman.shtml). Sincere thanks to Alan Morrison, Michael
Solimine, Larry Solum, and Suja Thomas for their helpful comments on earlier
drafts. 1. See Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574 (1986). 2. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 327. 3. Whether the Supreme Court's summary judgment
trilogy caused this shift or merely ratified one that had already occurred is
an interesting question. See Joe
S. Cecil, Rebecca N. Eyre, Dean Miletich & David Rindskopf, A Quarter
Century of Summary Judgment Practice in Six Federal District Courts, 4 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 861, 862 (2007),
available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=914147 ("[C]hanges in civil rules
and federal case-management practices prior to the trilogy may have been more
important in bringing about changes in summary judgment practice.") (link); see also Gregory P.
Joseph, Federal Litigation—Where Did It Go Off Track, Litig., Summer 2008, at 132 ("Whether
the Summary Judgment Trilogy is the cause or was an effect, there is no doubt
that summary judgment has become a centerpiece of federal litigation over the
past 25 years."). 4. Adam
N. Steinman, The Irrepressible Myth of Celotex: Reconsidering Summary
Judgment Burdens Twenty Years After the Trilogy, 63 Wash. & Lee L. Rev.
81, 143 (2006). 5. See Comm.
on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the U.S.,
Report of the Civil Rules Advisory Committee 21–40 (May 9, 2008, as
amended June 30, 2008) [hereinafter, Committee
Report], available at
http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/Reports/CV_Report.pdf (link). The last nontechnical revision to Rule 56
occurred in 1963 and involved fairly minor issues. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee's
notes (1963 Amendment). The public comment period for the current
proposal lasts until February 17, 2009, after which the proposed amendments may
be reconsidered or revised. See Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts, Preliminary Draft of Proposed
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure: A Summary for Bench
and Bar (August 2008), available at
http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/Reports/Brochure.pdf (link). The Supreme Court must ultimately approve any
proposed amendments and transmit them to Congress by May 1, 2009; unless Congress
legislates otherwise, any amendments approved by the Supreme Court would take
effect on December 1, 2009. See 28 U.S.C. § 2074(a) (2006). 6. Committee Report, supra note 5, at 21. 7. Id. at 25; see also id. at 28–30 (proposed Rule 56(c)(2)). Current Rule 56 contains no particular
procedure for presenting, opposing, and resolving summary judgment motions, see Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56, (current version) and the Committee notes that this silence has led to
local rules that "are not uniform, and at times mandate practices that are
inconsistent from one district to another."
Committee Report, supra
note 5, at 21. It
is beyond the scope of this Essay to argue the merits of the proposed
point-counterpoint procedure, although I am inclined to agree with the
Committee that the process is an improvement that will "encourage well-founded
motions and focused responses" and "facilitat[e] well-informed decision." Id. Rather, the focus of this Essay is to ensure
that the process is codified in a way that does not inadvertently disturb other
aspects of summary judgment procedure. 8. Id. at 28–29 (proposed Rule
56(c)(2)(A)(ii)). 9. Id. at 29 (proposed Rule
56(c)(2)(B)(i)–(ii)). 10. Id. at 29–30 (proposed Rule
56(c)(2)(C)(i)). 11. Id. at 21. 12. The
proposed text reads:
Id. at 30–31 (proposed Rule 56(c)(4)(A)). 13. Id. at 31 (proposed Rule
56(c)(4)(B)). 14. See supra note 11 and accompanying text (describing the Committee's
intent that the proposed amendments leave the existing summary judgment
standard and burdens intact). 15. Committee Report, supra note 5, at 31 (proposed Rule 56(c)(4)(A)(ii)). 16. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (emphasis in
original). 17. Committee Report, supra note 5, at 31 (proposed Rule 56(c)(4)(A)(ii)). 18. Id. at 37 (emphasis added). 19. See, e.g., Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 568 (2005) ("As we have repeatedly held, the authoritative statement is
the statutory text, not the legislative history or any other extrinsic
material.") (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1367). 20. See, e.g., Edward A. Hartnett, Against
Mere Restyling, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev.
155, 167–71 (2006) (expressing concern that courts will "attend to the plain
language of the restyled rules" rather than heed the drafters' intent that the
recent restyling was "intended to make no changes in substantive meaning"). 21. Like
the Committee Report, this Essay uses the phrase "'no-evidence' motion" to mean a summary judgment motion that is "made
by a party who does not have the trial burden of production" and that "show[s
that] the nonmovant has no evidence to support its position." Committee
Report, supra
note 5, at 49. 22. Id. at 30–31 (proposed Rule 56(c)(4)(A)). 23. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (current version). 24. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (quoting the
then-current version of Rule 56(c)). In
2007, the nonsubstantive restyling of Rule 56 revised the language quoted by
the Celotex Court. Current Rule 56(c) allows summary judgment "if
the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (current version)
(emphasis added). 25. See supra notes 19–20 and accompanying text; see also Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal
Courts and the Law 17 (1997) (declaring that government by "unexpressed
intent" is "tyrannical," comparing it to Emperor Nero's practice of posting
edicts high up on pillars so they could not easily be read). 26. The
revisions suggested in this Essay's Appendix also eliminate an ambiguity in the
proposed text that could make the "statement" and "response" required under the
point-counterpoint procedure more lengthy and complex than necessary. The Committee Report suggests that each party
must make its "showing" about the presence or absence of a genuine dispute in
its separate statement or response. See Committee
Report, supra note 5, at 50.
Although the Committee stresses that "[t]his showing is not an
argument—arguments are to be made in the brief," id., it is not clear how thorough the showing in the statement or
response must be. If parties perceive a
need to include in their summary judgment statement or response elaborate and
lengthy "showing[s]" that essentially duplicate the arguments presented in
their briefs, the efficiencies of the point-counterpoint procedure may
vanish. This Essay's suggested revisions
avoid this problem by clarifying that the statement and response need only cite
to any record materials on which the parties rely for their factual
positions. This will allow the court to
confine its inquiry to those cited materials, while leaving to the parties'
briefs their precise arguments as to whether a genuine dispute exists. 27. Committee Report, supra note 5, at 31
(proposed Rule 56(c)(5)). 28. The
Committee Report indicates that the impetus for this proposed language was that
practitioners had "asked for explicit direction on the proper formal procedure
for presenting the position that material cited to support a fact is not
admissible in evidence." Id. at 50. 29. Id. at 37 ("If a case goes to trial,
failure to challenge admissibility at the summary-judgment stage does not
forfeit the right to challenge admissibility at trial."). 30. See Steinman, supra note 4, at 121. 31. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (emphasis added). 32. Id. at 327 (emphasis added); see also, e.g., J.F. Feeser, Inc. v. Serv-A-Portion, Inc., 909 F.2d 1524, 1542 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Celotex); DeBiasi v. Charter County of Wayne, 537 F. Supp. 2d 903, 911–12 (E.D. Mich. 2008) (same); ERBE Electromedizin GmbH v. Canady Tech. LLC, 529 F. Supp. 2d 577, 586–87 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (same); Thomas v. City of Pittsburgh, 34 F. Supp. 2d 965, 969 (W.D. Pa. 1999) (same). 33. See Fed.
R. Evid. 801(c) (defining hearsay as "a statement, other than one made
by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence
to prove the truth of the matter asserted").
Unlike testimony at a deposition, where there is an opportunity to
cross-examine the declarant, statements in an affidavit are generally not
covered by any exception to the hearsay rule.
Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) (providing that prior testimony
given at a hearing or deposition should not be excluded as hearsay if the
declarant is unavailable and "if the party against whom the testimony is now offered . . . had
an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or
redirect examination"); Fed. R. Civ. P.
32(a)(1)(A) (providing that depositions may be used against a party at trial
only if "the party was present or represented at the taking of the deposition
or had reasonable notice of it"). 34. The
Committee appears to recognize this tension in the "Detailed Discussion and Questions" portion of its Report, although
the language it uses is somewhat ambiguous.
The proposed rule lists the types of evidence that may be considered at
the summary judgment phase, namely "depositions,
documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for
purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other
materials." Committee Report, supra note 5, at 30 (proposed Rule 56(c)(4)(A)(i) (emphasis added)).
Discussing this provision, the Report explains that "[i]t is important to carry forward the
familiar authority to rely on affidavits or declarations because they otherwise
might be excluded from consideration as
inadmissible at trial." Id. at 50 (emphasis added). The
italicized language suggests that summary judgment evidence might indeed be "excluded
from consideration" if it would be "inadmissible at trial." The Committee seems to presume, however, that
the mere inclusion of affidavits in the list of summary judgment materials
solves what "otherwise" would be an inadmissibility problem. But if the types of evidence enumerated in
Rule 56 are per se admissible for
summary judgment purposes, then it is unclear what would ever
be a valid basis for "stat[ing]" under Proposed Rule 56(c)(5) that
material cited by the other side "is not admissible in evidence." 35. See Fed.
R. Evid. 801(c). 36. A
court might not be able to predict with mechanical certainty whether information
reflected in a summary judgment document will in fact be reduced to
admissible evidence at trial. But this
is so even with the gold-standard of summary judgment material—a sworn
affidavit from a witness with personal knowledge of the relevant facts. For any number of reasons, that witness might
testify differently at trial or might not be able to appear at all. See
Steinman, supra note 4,
at 141–42. 37. See Steinman, supra note 4, at 128–31. The
analysis above focuses on materials used to rebut a Celotex-style "no
evidence" motion. Trial admissibility
standards may play a more direct role when the movant (whether plaintiff or
defendant) seeks summary judgment based on affirmative
evidence that its factual position is true, for example, by submitting
material showing that the traffic light was in fact red or green when the
defendant's car entered the intersection.
In this situation, the movant is
using that material "to prove the truth of the matter asserted," Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), because such a
movant satisfies the summary judgment standard only by establishing the truth of the matter beyond any genuine
dispute. Yet even in this context,
current practice does not fully incorporate trial admissibility standards. As discussed supra notes 33–34 and accompanying text, affidavits are routinely used
for summary judgment purposes, even though they are generally not admissible at
trial. Perhaps evidentiary flaws in the
movant's material are more suitably resolved by the summary judgment standard
itself, rather than by a separate inquiry into whether the material is "admissible" for summary judgment purposes. Imagine that a movant presents no sworn
testimony by witnesses with personal
knowledge of what color the traffic light was, but seeks summary judgment based
on a deposition where the deponent testifies that someone else had said that the light was green. Even if the court may permissibly consider this testimony for summary
judgment purposes, the hearsay problem may mean that the movant has failed to
truly "foreclose the possibility" of a genuine dispute and, therefore, has not
met the summary judgment standard. Cf. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398
U.S. 144, 157 (1970) (holding that affidavits from two of the defendant's
employees stating that they had not
conspired with any policemen to refuse service to the plaintiff were
insufficient bases for summary judgment because the affidavits "fail[ed] to
foreclose the possibility that there was a policeman in the Kress
store . . . and that this policeman reached an understanding
with some [other] Kress employee that [the plaintiff] not be served"). It is beyond the scope of this Essay to
exhaustively explore the role of trial admissibility standards in different
summary judgment situations; for this Essay's purpose, it is sufficient to note
that significant open questions remain. 38. Committee Report, supra note 5, at 31 (proposed Rule 56(c)(5)). Rule 56 has always required that affidavits (but not other summary
judgment materials) "must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts
that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to
testify on the matters stated." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (current
version). This language regarding
affidavits has been retained in the Committee's proposal. See Committee
Report, supra note 5, at 31–32 (proposed Rule 56(c)(6)). 39. Committee Report, supra note 5, at 21. 40. See Steinman, supra note 4, at 121. 41. Eliminating
proposed Rule 56(c)(5) would not prevent
a litigant from arguing that her opponent's summary judgment material is
inadmissible. Such an argument could be
raised in her summary judgment brief (or reply brief). 42. Committee Report, supra note 5, at 29 (proposed Rule 56(c)(2)(B)(ii),
authorizing the nonmovant to state "additional material facts that preclude
summary judgment"). 43. Id. at 27 (proposed Rule 56(a)
(emphasis added)); accord Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c) (current version,
authorizing summary judgment when "there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact"). 44. See 28 U.S.C. § 2073; see also supra note 5. *. This
listing of materials is taken verbatim from proposed Rule 56(c)(4)(A)(i). The list is moved here in light of this Essay's
suggested revisions to proposed Rule 56(c)(4).
This suggested approach parallels current Rule 56, which explicitly
links the enumerated summary judgment materials with the general summary
judgment standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c) (current version) ("The judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery
and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law."). **. This
Essay's suggested sub-sections (A)–(D) of Rule 56(c)(4) would replace the
Committee's proposed Rule 56(c)(4)(A), which reads:
———— Copyright 2008 Northwestern University Cite as: 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 230 (2008). Persistent URL: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/colloquy/2008/45 (Comments) |


text:
Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Brian writes \"The Allentown Morning Call has a Story on the demand for library books about bicultural Latino children.\"
From the story:
\"\"This is the kind of book I want my daughter to read,\" Rodriguez, who lives in Allentown, said. \"It\'s hard to find books where my children can read about children who look just like them and speak English.\"


text:
PROMENADE Place an ad today! ST4:TVH Collector's Edition DVD (0 comments | Add) Typhon Station is a very fastpaced PBeM RPG with skilled, experienced players and a warm sense of bonding and community. We play at the turn-of-the-century, 2400, and are located in the Typhon Expanses, bordering the Neutral Zone, proximate to the Romulan Empire, and near the Iconian Digs, and are on the first warning route of the original Borg Incursion. We have three stations to post from, SB 185, USS Odyssey, and USS Wraith. They all have general and particular storylines and all interact. This game is not for the faint of heart! The writing is superb and comes hot and heavy. We have some open spots and also we will consider character suggestions. So, longtime RPGers and novices, check us out. See if you want to make Typhon Station your home away from home. (0 comments | Add)
TrekWeb's Rating:
You can purchase the book from any of the following merchants to help support TrekWeb:
Written by Bill Williams, edited by Steve Krutzler
Synopsis: Pulled into one of Captain Archer's dangerously impulsive attempts to make first contact, Sub-Commander T'Pol finds her life threatened. T'Pol reacts, draws her phase pistol and kills. It was a simple act of self-defense. But is killing ever simple? And has she forsaken the teachings of Surak? Determined to be true to her heritage, T'Pol forswears voilence. She tells Artcher that never again will she kill--even if ordered.
Review: The issue of justifying the act of murder, whether self-defense, execution, or premeditated murder, has been long debated since the days of the Bible. It is this issue of justifying murder to preserve life that permeates the underlying theme of the new Enterprise novel SURAK'S SOUL.
When the crew investigates what appears to be an island paradise, they instead find a humanoid species on the verge of extinction. The last member of this species attacks the crew, and in an act of self-defense, T'Pol kills the dying humanoid. This decision forces T'Pol to question her Vulcan heritage and her studies in the teachings of Surak, until a being of pure energy--referred to only as the Wanderer--communicates with T'Pol and reveals the cause of the planetary genocide. One by one the crew becomes infected with the same genetic virus as the beings on the island planet, and with time running out T'Pol must decide whether the Wanderer can actually help in saving the crew or cause the crew's deaths.
Writer Jeanne M. Dillard, who has authored a number of the STAR TREK film novelizations, returns with her first original novel since the TOS novel RECOVERY. In the past, she wrote complex stories that explored the rich tapestry of the TREK legacy. However, with SURAK'S SOUL the attempt is sincere, but the execution rather short. At just 218 pages, the novel plays like an average episode of the series.
Dillard brings into the story an excellent comparison between Surak and the 20th century activist Mohandas Gandhi, the Indian leader who believed in peace and non-violence and united his countrymen against the British rule. The belief of peaceful co-existence as one of the rudiments of Vulcan logic permeates the Vulcan beliefs throughout the entire STAR TREK saga, despite a few revolutionaries determined to return to the old ways (ex. Valeris in "STAR TREK VI"). T'Pol, as a student of Surak's teachings, grapples with the thought of renouncing violence as a justification of preserving life, but as she watches her crewmates succumbing one by one to the same disease as the alien beings, she must decide whether it's worth the risk to once again kill, this time the very being who may be able to save the crew from the illness that is killing them, despite the evidence that the non-corporeal entity may have been responsible for the planetary genocide.
Adapting films into short novels seems to have created a trend that has crept into Dillard's first original work in years. She's much more capable of weaving stronger elements together and creating original elements to a scripted story. Her novelizations of THE FINAL FRONTIER, THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY, and GENERATIONS, for example, weave a number of truly interesting subplots into the context of the films' stories, which make those novelizations stand apart from the films on their own individual merits. However, in working within the ENTERPRISE framework, while the issues of non-violence and peace are good themes, they are not enough to sustain a strong story with Archer and company. The end result is a novel that plays very much like a number of the average episodes that we have seen over the last two years on television.
It's good to see J.M. Dillard back with a new STAR TREK novel, but unfortunate that the effort isn't nearly as strong as it should have been.
[ Reply to This | Parent Comment ]
Featured Merchandise ST4:TVH Collector's Edition DVD ST:DS9 Season One Pre-order ST: VOY Companion ST:TNG Companion Revised Edition NEMESIS Soundtrack ST:TNG DVD Sets
ST4:TVH Collector's Edition DVD ST:DS9 Season One
Pre-order ST: VOY Companion
ST:TNG Companion Revised Edition
NEMESIS Soundtrack
ST:TNG DVD Sets
Buy the NEMESIS one-sheet to support TrekWeb!
TrekWeb Merchants
Amazon.co.uk Amazon.ca Amazon.de
Black Star is the UK's largest video store and offers free shipping worldwide!


text:
Conclusion to Pre-Budget Online Consultation
Once again, as we conclude our pre-budget consultations, I am overwhelmed by the positive and insightful feedback we have received from Canadians across the country. Your input in the pre-budget process is invaluable to me and my colleagues, as we move forward in keeping Canada's economy strong. That means keeping taxes low, so you can keep more of your hard-earned dollars, while investing in programs and services that are important to you and your family.
In addition to hearing your views, as I do every year, I also consult many experts, private sector economists, academics and business representatives, as well as my Cabinet colleagues and fellow Parliamentarians. This allows our Government to get a full picture of what everyone is saying about the economy.
As we keep a steady hand on the economy, it is important that we continue to build on our successes and remain focused on the drivers of growth and job creation—innovation, investment, education, skills and communities—all underpinned by our commitment to lower taxes, sound financial management and a return to balanced budgets by 2015.
Canada continues to fare better than other nations, despite uncertain global economic times. We have the strongest job growth among Group of Seven (G-7) countries over the recovery, and our financial house is in order—both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the G-7 over this year and next and, for the sixth year in a row, the World Economic Forum rated Canada's banking system as the world's soundest.
Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance


text:
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement |
12-14-2012, 12:39 PM | #22 (permalink) |
Crowned Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: McAlester, OK
Posts: 18,220
You can make you own rollers with PVC I would think, and it would be much less expensive.
I like the terra cotta plant boxes filled with annuals every day. Attractive and functional.
Kathy URO3,UCD Aleshanee Windridge "Kayos" CD,TDX,RE,CGC,HIC,TC UAG1,UNN1,URO3,UCD Xtra!Xtra! V TeMar "Havoc" CDX,GN,RE,CGC,HIC,TC,BH UAG2,URO1 Tidmores Rising Star Lydia "Mayhem" BN,NA,NAJ,RN,HT,TC,CGC, Bridge Lucky, Wolf, Max |
12-28-2012, 07:41 PM | #24 (permalink) |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 344
I had a rott/pinscher mix growing up... he was a beast... he used to dig under the fence, so I poured. Concrete trough,, the he literally chewed through the 4x4 posts like a beaver, collapsing he whole fence... I tried a harness and cable, but he got sores ... I finally got an electric fence... problem solved... only took two weeks before I didn't need it anymore ... when he'd get out he would just post up in my front yard growling at my neighbors ... he never left the yard, but the neighborhood wasn't all that appreciative,, lol
The thing is, also, I didn't know much about dog training back then ...
My baby boy: Yoschi vom Herzbach, winner of my heart
Sire: V1-Gildo vom Herzbach SchH3, IPO3, FH, KKL1"a" Dam: V-Fenja vom Herzbach SchH3, FH, KKL1"a" |
Sponsored Links | |
Advertisement |