June 23, 2006

Blog a Trois

by PG

The square root of nine justices is three lawyers/ law students. Perhaps that's the calculation behind Milbarge's idea that he, Will Baude and I do a Slate-style discussion of the soon-to-end Supreme Court term. We may achieve similar levels of agreement -- below the fold, I list the cases in which the justices were not wholly unanimous (many of which were unanimous in result, with just a concurrence filed or a subpart unjoined) -- or perhaps we will hark back to the good ol' disputatious days of the Rehnquist era. All the posts will be at blogdenovo.org/scotus2006.html, and I hope that BTQ, Crescat and De Novo readers add their own opinions to the mix.

The descriptions of the holdings come from the Court's sliplists.

SCHAFFER v. WEAST: In an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act challenging a school district's "individualized education program" for a disabled child, the burden of persuasion is properly placed upon the party seeking relief, whether that is the child or the school district. O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion. GINSBURG, J., and BREYER, J., filed dissenting opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

WAGNON v. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION: Because Kansas' motor fuel tax is a nondiscriminatory tax imposed on off-reservation receipt of fuel by non-Indian distributors, the tax is valid and poses no affront to respondent Nation's sovereignty, even though those distributors subsequently deliver the fuel to the Nation's gas station on the reservation. The interest-balancing test set forth in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U. S. 136, does not apply to a tax that results from an off-reservation transaction between non-Indians. THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, O’CONNOR, SCALIA, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY, J., joined.

LOCKHART v. UNITED STATES: The United States may offset Social Security benefits to collect a student loan debt that has been outstanding for over 10 years. O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion.

UNITED STATES v. GEORGIA: Insofar as Title II of the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 creates a private cause of action for damages against States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity. SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined.

VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. REEDER- SIMCO GMC, INC.: A manufacturer may not be held liable for secondary-line price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act in the absence of a showing that the manufacturer discriminated between dealers competing to resell its product to the same retail customer. The Act centrally addresses price discrimination in cases involving competition between different purchasers for resale of the purchased product. Such competition ordinarily is not involved when a product subject to special order is sold through a customer-specific competitive bidding process. GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and O’CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.

EVANS v. CHAVIS: The Ninth Circuit departed from this Court's interpretation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996's 1-year limitations period as applied to California's collateral review system when it found respondent's petition timely despite a 3-year, 1-month, delay in appealing denial of his state collateral review petition. BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and O’CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

BROWN v. SANDERS: An invalidated sentencing factor (whether an eligibility factor or not) will render a first-degree murder sentence unconstitutional by reason of its adding an improper element to the aggravation scale in the weighing process unless one of the other sentencing factors enables the sentencer to give aggravating weight to the same facts and circumstances; the jury's consideration of invalid special circumstances in Sanders' case gave rise to no constitutional violation. SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and O’CONNOR, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined.

GONZALES v. OREGON: The Controlled Substances Act does not allow the Attorney General to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide under state law permitting the procedure. KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, O’CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

RICE v. COLLINS: The Ninth Circuit's attempt to use a set of debatable inferences to set aside a reasonable state-court conclusion does not satisfy the requirements for granting habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOUTER, J., joined.

CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE v. KATZ: A bankruptcy trustee’s proceeding to set aside the debtor’s preferential transfers to state agencies is not barred by sovereign immunity. STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O’CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined.

UNITHERM FOOD SYSTEMS, INC. v. SWIFT-ECKRICH, INC.: Because respondent failed to renew, after trial, its preverdict motion for judgment as a matter of law, as specified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), the Federal Circuit had no basis for reviewing respondent’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge to the verdict. THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and O’CONNOR, SCALIA, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY, J., joined.

BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. CARDEGNA: Regardless of whether it is brought in federal or state court, a challenge to the validity of a contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause within it, must be resolved by the arbitrator, not by the court. SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

LANCE v. DENNIS: The Rooker-Feldman doctrine -- which prevents lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by "state-court losers" challenging "state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced," Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U. S. 280, 284 -- does not bar actions by nonparties to the earlier state-court judgment simply because, for purposes of preclusion law, they could be considered in privity with a party to that judgment. GINSBURG, with whom SOUTER joins, concurring. "I agree in full with the Court’s correction of the District Court’s Rooker-Feldman error, and therefore join the Court’s opinion. Although JUSTICE STEVENS has persuasively urged that issue preclusion warrants affirmance, see post, at 2–3 (dissenting opinion), that question of Colorado law seems to me best left for full airing and decision on remand."

DOLAN v. POSTAL SERVICE: Dolan's claim against the Postal Service is not barred by an exception for the "negligent transmission of . . . postal matter" to the Federal Tort Claims Act's general waiver of federal sovereign immunity, and thus her suit may proceed. KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

OREGON v. GUZEK: The Constitution does not prohibit a State from limiting the innocence-related evidence a capital defendant can introduce at a sentencing proceeding to the evidence introduced at the original trial. BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS,
J., joined. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

UNITED STATES v. GRUBBS: "Anticipatory" search warrants based on an affidavit showing probable cause that at some future time (but not presently) certain evidence of crime will be located at a specified place are not categorically unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment's probable-cause provision; the anticipatory warrant at issue did not violate the Amendment's particularity requirement, which does not include the conditions precedent to execution of such a warrant. SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and BREYER, JJ., joined, and in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, J., joined as to Parts I and II. SOUTER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which STEVENS and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

GEORGIA v. RANDOLPH: In the circumstances here at issue, a physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry to a home renders warrantless entry and search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and invalid as to him. SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., and BREYER, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. SCALIA, J., and THOMAS, J., filed dissenting opinions. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

DAY v. MCDONOUGH: In the circumstances presented, the District Court had discretion to correct the State's erroneous time computation and, accordingly, to dismiss Day's federal habeas petition as untimely under the one-year limitation period set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, SOUTER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion dissenting from the judgment, in which BREYER, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and BREYER, JJ., joined.

JONES v. FLOWERS: When mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, a State must take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property, if it is practicable to do so; because additional steps were available given the circumstances here, the State's effort to provide notice to petitioner was insufficient to satisfy due process. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

HARTMAN v. MOORE: A plaintiff in a retaliatory-prosecution action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, must plead and show the absence of probable cause for pressing the underlying criminal charges. SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

MARSHALL v. MARSHALL: The Ninth Circuit had no warrant from Congress, or from this Court’s decisions, for its sweeping extension of the “probate exception” this Court has recognized to federal-court jurisdiction; because this case does not fall within the exception’s scope, the District Court properly asserted jurisdiction over petitioner’s tort counterclaim against respondent, despite ongoing proceedings in a Texas Probate Court. GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP. v. CUNO: Plaintiff taxpayers have not established their standing to challenge a state franchise tax credit; because they have no standing to challenge that credit, the lower courts erred by considering their claims on the merits. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

S. D. WARREN CO. v. MAINE BD. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: Because a hydroelectric dam raises a potential for a "discharge into the navigable waters" of the United States under §401 of the Clean Water Act, the federal license to operate petitioner's dams requires state certification that water protection laws will not be violated. SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined as to all but Part III–C.

EBAY INC. v. MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C.: The traditional four-factor test applied by courts of equity when considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined.

BRIGHAM CITY v. STUART: Police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion.

GARCETTI v. CEBALLOS: When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline. KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

ANZA v. IDEAL STEEL SUPPLY CORP.: Respondent cannot maintain a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim against petitioners under 18 U. S. C. §1962(c) because it has not shown proximate cause between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged; the Second Circuit must on remand determine whether the proximate cause requirement is met with respect to respondent's §1962(a) claim. KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined as to Part III. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., and BREYER, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. (MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONER v. SHIRLEY WILLIAMS ET AL. was remanded for consideration in light of ANZA.)

ZEDNER v. UNITED STATES: A defendant may not prospectively waive the application of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, which generally requires criminal trials to start within 70 days of indictment; petitioner is not estopped from challenging the exclusion of a 91-day delay from the 70-day period; the District Court's decision to exclude that delay is not subject to harmless-error review; the Act was violated because the 91-day delay exceeded the 70 days permitted by the Act. ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined as to all but Part III–A–2. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

HOUSE v. BELL: Because House has made the stringent showing required by the actual-innocence exception to the state procedural default rule, his federal habeas corpus action may proceed. KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, inwhich SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

HUDSON v. MICHIGAN: Violation of the knock-and-announce rule does not require suppression of evidence found in a search. SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinionconcurring in part and concurring in the judgment. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

KIRCHER v. PUTNAM FUNDS TRUST: Federal district-court orders remanding removed securities class actions to state court for want of preclusion under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 are subject to 28 U. S. C. §1447(d), which makes remand orders unreviewable on appeal. SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined as to Parts I, III, and IV. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.: Insurance carriers' claims for unpaid workers' compensation premiums owed by an employer fall outside the priority, among unsecured creditors' claims, that the Bankruptcy Code allows for unpaid contributions to "an employee benefit plan," 11 U. S. C. §507(a)(5). GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, THOMAS, and BREYER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and ALITO, JJ., joined.

EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. v. MCVEIGH: Title 28 U. S. C. §1331 -- which authorizes federal jurisdiction over "civil actions arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United States" -- does not encompass a federal suit by a health-care plan providing benefits under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 for reimbursement of medical bills the plan paid on behalf of a plan beneficiary who, injured in an accident, recovered damages (unaided by the plan administrator) in a state-court tort action against a third party alleged to have caused the accident. GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY, SOUTER, and ALITO, JJ., joined.

RAPANOS v. UNITED STATES: The Sixth Circuit's judgments that petitioners' wetlands were adjacent to navigable waters and thus covered by the Clean Water Act are vacated, and the cases are remanded. SCALIA, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered anopinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DAVIS v. WASHINGTON: For Confrontation Clause purposes, statements made during police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the interrogation's primary purpose is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency are nontestimonial; they are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such emergency, and that the interrogation's primary purpose is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution. Thus, statements identifying petitioner Davis as the assailant during a 911 call were not testimonial, but statements made by petitioner Hammon's wife to police after he allegedly battered her were testimonial and properly excluded because he did not have the opportunity to cross-examine her, unless he coerced her failure to testify. SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment inpart and dissenting in part.

SAMSON v. CALIFORNIA: The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee. THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and BREYER, JJ., joined.

YOUNGBLOOD v. WEST VIRGINIA: Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for the views of the full court on the federal constitutional claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, that petitioner clearly presented there. Per Curiam. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J. joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DIXON v. UNITED STATES: Where petitioner claimed that she acted under duress when she illegally purchased firearms, the jury instructions at her trial did not run afoul of the Due Process Clause by placing the burden on her to establish duress by a preponderance of the evidence; modern common law does not require the Government to bear the burden of disproving her duress defense beyond a reasonable doubt. STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, J., joined.

FERNANDEZ-VARGAS v. GONZALES: The new version of an immigration law provision, which permits reinstatement of an order removing an alien present unlawfully if he leaves and unlawfully reenters, applies to those who reentered the United States before the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and does not retroactively affect petitioner, who is a continuing violator of the Immigration and Nationality Act. SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

BURLINGTON N. & S. F. R. CO. v. WHITE: The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace, but it does cover only those employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or applicant. Under that standard, there was a sufficient evidentiary basis to support the jury's verdict on respondent's retaliation claim. BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

WOODFORD v. NGO: The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requirement that prisoners exhaust any available administrative remedies before challenging prison conditions in federal court requires proper exhaustion of administrative remedies. ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

LABORATORY CORP. OF AMERICA HOLDINGS v. METABOLITE LABORATORIES, INC.: Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted. Per Curiam. ROBERTS, C.J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and SOUTER, JJ., joined.

June 23, 2006 10:58 PM | TrackBack
Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Sitting in Review
Armen (e-mail) #
PG (e-mail) #
Dave (e-mail) #
Craig (e-mail) #
About Us
Senior Status
Chris Geidner #
Jeremy Blachman #
Nick Morgan #
Wings & Vodka #
Recent Opinions
Symposia
Persuasive Authority
De Novo Reporter
Research


Powered by
Movable Type 3.21