Report of the proceedings of the general court martial held at the King's Arms Tavern in Albany, April 4, 1776

Contains summaries of court-martials of a variety of soldiers for desertion, drunk and disorderly conduct, striking an officer, and damning the American congress.

Records of cases before the Mayor's Court of Albany, 1786-1796

Contains a summary of cases before the court beginning with the litigants and the damages sought, the legal action, names of counsel, actions taken, and the final disposition of the case. Most actions taken relate to debt, assault and battery, and slander and libel. At the back of the manuscript are "an account of law books by me purchased in the year 1784 & 1785" [p. 120], and"a list miscellanious books bought in the year 1784 & 1785" [p. 132].

Cases adjudged in the General Court of Virginia, 1733-1741

A copy of the reports by Edward Barradall of decisions of the general court of Virginia made by Gustavus A. Myers for William Green from a copy lent him by Conway Robinson.

Proceedings in the Court of Chancery of Grenada: during the government of his excellency Lord Macartney, 1776-1778

Contains summaries of cases before the Chancery Court of Grenada arranged chronologically and preceded by an index.

Notebook of cases in the New York Supreme Court and Circuit Court, 1797-ca. 1802

Contains "court minutes" of the New York Supreme Court and Circuit Court, in short entries by an unknown judge, identifying cases, attorneys, plaintiffs and defendants, and the actions taken.

At a court of admiralty held at Boston ... the 22d day of 1704 was condemned the briggantine Charles whereof John Quelch was late commander ... , 1704

Attestation regarding the trial of Quelch and other defendants, who were convicted of piracy. Signed: John Valentine, registrar.

[Court appointment to inventory the Gannett estate], 1818 April 29

A one-page printed Middlesex County Court of Probate form appointing and authorizing William Hilliard, James P. Chaplin, and Royal Morse to inventory of the estate of Caleb Gannett.

Hezekiah Squamauge & Amos Ahatton's petition to ye General Court, 1723 December 25

One-page handwritten petition to the Massachusetts General Court on behalf of "Indian inhabitants in Punkapaugue" regarding help with their "lands, and especially as to our orchards, meddows, and to look after our timber, which has been shamfully cutt down, and carried away to our great damage."

Roolle de la monstre et reveue faicte en armes en la basse court du chasteau de Calumet : manuscript, 1605 Oct. 20

Manuscript document, in an unidentified hand, concerning the staffing of the garrison of Calumet, western Quebec, with 20 armed men, ordered and signed by the Governor Henry de Giou, lord of Caylus. Also signed by Cesar de Bonnefont and Amable de Basmaison.

Battlefield of Spotsylvania Court House, Virginia and vicinity, 1864 (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic paper map: Map of the battle field of Spottsylvania C.H. : showing the field of operations of the Army of the Potomac commanded by Maj. Gen. George G. Meade U.S.A., from May 8th to 21st, 1865 [i.e. 1864], surveyed under the orders of Bvt. Col. J.C. Duane, Major of Engineers, Chief Engineer, Army of the Potomac, by Bvt. Maj. C.W. Howell, 1st Lieut. of Engineers ; assisted by Messrs. L.C. Oswell, L. Bell, and R.B. Talfor ; J. Bien, lithographer, New York. It was published ca. 1865. Scale [1:15,840]. Covers area surrounding Spotsylvania and Spotsylvania Battlefield, Virginia. The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the Virginia State Plane North Coordinate System (in Meters) (Fipszone 4501). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, or other information associated with the principal map. This map shows features such as roads, drainage, dwellings with names of inhabitants, vegetation, Union and Confederate troop lines and defenses, and more. Relief shown by hachures. Includes note. This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps of the Civil War from the Harvard Map Collection. Many items from this selection are from a collection of maps deposited by the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States Commandery of the State of Massachusetts (MOLLUS) in the Harvard Map Collection in 1938. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features, in particular showing places of military importance. The selection represents a range of regions, originators, ground condition dates, scales, and purposes.

The European Court of Justice and process-oriented review. Research Paper in Law, 01/2012

Structuralism is a theory of U.S. constitutional adjudication according to which courts should seek to improve the decision-making process of the political branches of government so as to render it more democratic.1 In words of John Hart Ely, courts should exercise their judicial-review powers as a ‘representation-reinforcing’ mechanism.2 Structuralism advocates that courts must eliminate the elements of the political decision-making process that are at odds with the structure set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. The advantage of this approach, U.S. scholars posit, lies in the fact that it does not require courts to second-guess the policy decisions adopted by the political branches of government. Instead, they limit themselves to enforcing the constitutional structure within which those decisions must be adopted. Of course, this theory of constitutional adjudication, like all theories, has its shortcomings. For example, detractors of structuralism argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw the dividing line between ‘substantive’ and ‘structural’ matters.3 In particular, they claim that, when identifying the ‘structure’ set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, courts necessarily base their determinations not on purely structural principles, but on a set of substantive values, evaluating concepts such as democracy, liberty and equality. 4 Without claiming that structuralism should be embraced by the ECJ as the leading theory of judicial review, the purpose of my contribution is to explore how recent case-law reveals that the ECJ has also striven to develop guiding principles which aim to improve the way in which the political institutions of the EU adopt their decisions. In those cases, the ECJ decided not to second-guess the appropriateness of the policy choices made by the EU legislator. Instead, it preferred to examine whether, in reaching an outcome, the EU political institutions had followed the procedural steps mandated by the authors of the Treaties. Stated simply, I argue that judicial deference in relation to ‘substantive outcomes’ has been counterbalanced by a strict ‘process review’. To that effect, I would like to discuss three recent rulings of the ECJ, delivered after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, where an EU policy measure was challenged indirectly, i.e. via the preliminary reference procedure, namely Vodafone, Volker und Markus Schecke and Test-Achats.5 Whilst in the former case the ECJ ruled that the questions raised by the referring court disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the challenged act, in the latter cases the challenged provisions of an EU act were declared invalid.