# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Board of Trustees v. Davis > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385604_0174%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1968 - **Citation:** 393 U.S. 962 ## Text ‘ ‘ yr, ve © SUPREME BURT OF THE UNITED STATES ne ‘B24 ecules TERM, 1968 ed Vs Boarp or Trustees oF ARKANSAS A. & M. Couece, a body corporate, and Dr. “Homer Bast, President of Arkansas A. & M. College, —— CAE R ae eeecis Petitioners — ‘ | We | , : C H.. Baaw?r Daves, 4: ...._.-___..__......__....._ Heppondent PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT —— PETITION FOR CERTIORARI © © _. Jor Purcey . = Attorney General of Arkansas Dow LanGstTon’ _ Deputy Attorney Sinaia’ Justice Building Little Rock, | Arkansas 72201 ' Attorneys for Petitioners ss sy PRINTING CO., LITTLE Rog ry - e IN THE Tisiciial ee =e ee ee - S cenawe nae aS 2 ‘ INDEX | | 6 Opinions Below _. : : 2 Jurisdiction . 2 Questions Presented As , ~ 2 Constitutional Provision & std 9 Sionalocod ME Statement a a a ) —— i * " Argument Sen Te . 9 Appendix: A . P ~ eo Appendix B Le ; : 22 Appendix .C aeeus 30 STATUTES +, 28 US.C.A. $1254 i Bs nn @ 28 US.C.A. $1292(b) eA Sos * 28 'U.S.C.A. $1331 ___" Citi — 3, 4, 5,7 28: US.C:A. 11332(a) (1) enn ee ere 2%, 5, 13 * 98 US.C.A. 113430) a 3 ene Be 1, 13 42 US.C.A. 11983 2 Ciadiee _ 13, 8,7, 180 Ark. Stat, Ann. $80-3101 et. seq, 8 CASE CITATIONS - es Tage American Comm. Ass’n., C.L v. Douds, @ d ee 339 US. 382, m8. Ct. 674, 94 L. ed. 925 (1950) ra 12 Antelope v. George, 211 F. Supp.. all (D.C. Idaho 1962) is a ae Arkansas v. Texas, 346:U'S. 368, 98 L. ed. 80, 74 S. Ct, 109° (1953) __ 7 — | __ Arkansas Board of Trustees. o ‘hie ‘ oe A. & M. et al v. H. Brent avis, 270 F. Supp. 528: 2 - Bx Parte Young, 200-Us. 123 | a . . ; Hague v. Committee for Ind. iat 101 F. 2d 774 (1939). . TERY = 7 In Re Ayers, 123 US. 58,8 S.Ct. 164 { 9, 11 debe. Unipibert, 06 Aste 298 | : 10 Mabery v. Western Casualty & Surety Company, 173 Kan. 586, 250 P. 2d 624 (1952) me Ye North Carolina Vv. Picaaie. 10 S. Ct. Poa e : 134 U.S. 30, 33 L. ed. 849 (N.C. 1890) i \ Parker v. Board of Education of Prince George County Maryland, 237 F. Supp. 222, 348 F. 2d 464 (4 CCA 1965) _____ 11 Pitcock v. State, 91 Ark. 527 AEs 10 dlik v. Public Service Commission of Cole., 166 F. Supp. 921 (D.C. Colo. 1958) 13. . zt ] : 5 . % v; Flischmann, 214 §,C. 263, 52 Re ct ee '2d_ 199 (1949) __ < aban a ee Sm prt v. State Board of “Comte, » san S.E. 688, 85 W. Va. 739 (1920) a : ll State v. University of Arkansas Board of ‘Trustee, - 407 S.W. 2d 916, 241 Ark. 399 ae - 10 The All Engineering Co ov. Kays, 106 Ark. aes et me 174, 152 S.W. 992 (1913) — . OT é United Uublic Workers of America v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. "5, 95, 67 S. Ct. 556 (1947): Opinion of Justices, 382 Mass. 785, 127 N-E, 2d 663 (1955) 12 &, INDEX—(Continued) aa es \ A: { White, Inc. v. ‘seetropoliten Merchandise Mart, Inc., ° "48 Del. 526, 107 A. 24 892 (1954). —_—_ 14 ‘UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION | : Eleventh Amendment : ‘ (U.S.C.A., CONSTITUTION, Amendment 6 to 14 . page 223) ____ 3, 9, 10, 11 First Amendment ; i a 6 Fourteenth Amendment : See } ws : — 6 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE | Rule 12 (b) : fi : 5 ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION Arkansas Cohstitution, Article 5 $9 | 9 EL be : Ries . : ‘ : : . , _ . + : * : j : : ° : © INTHE < _ SUPREME COURT OFTHE UTD SANE _ OCTOBER TERM, 1967 . | —hs ~ Boarp or Trustees or Arkansas A.& M. © .- | Cotteck, a body corporate, and Dr =~ HomER Basi, President of - Arkansas ‘A. | & M. College, _t. Petitioners v. | H. Brent Da PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO . THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS rica — EIGHTH CIRCUIT | PETITION. FOR CERTIORARI ce ees Petitioners petition this court for a Writ of Certiorari j to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to review a judgment entered i in this case on June ~ 24, 1968, wherein the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, affirmed the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine. _ Bluff. Division, overruling petitioner’s, motion to dismiss - the — : ! OPINIONS BELOW _ The opinion and order of the United States District _ Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division, is. reported in 270 F. Supp. 528. The opinion "and judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit are not yet reported. . A copy of the District Court opinion is set forth in Appendix A and a _¢opy of the opinion of the United States Circuit Court | of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is set forth in Appendix B. to this ve for certiorari. " JURISDICTION The judgment sought to be reviewed in this case was . centered on June 24, 1968. . Jurisdiction ‘of the United States Supreme Court to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in this case is by petition for Writ of Costionnes pursuant to 28 U.S&.C.A. _— «. ‘ QUESTIONS PRESENTED « 1. "The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit erred in finding that state immunity to suit as GFoaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment to, the Constitu- - tion of the United States does not extend to the State .of Arkansas when acting through the Board of tee a Arkansas A. & M. College, a state agency. In other wo there is a lack of jurisdiction by the District and Circuit Courts over the subject matter of this action by reason of state seman under the Eleventh Amendment. ra . 2 The: United States Cireuit Court: for the Eighth - Cireuit erred in holding that the complaint stated ‘a cause | , - f ’ ° ’ of action upon which relief can be granted and ‘that breach of “contract and tort were properly pled. In other words, , there is a failure of the complaint to state a claim for -: relief which can be granted by a Federal Court. A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AND STATUTES The Constitutional , provision involved herein is Amendment Eleven to the United States Constitution and “~s, ‘ean be found in U.S.C.A., Constrrution, Amendment .6 to 14, page 223.. The Amendment provides as. follows: The J udicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or. equity, commenéed. ger prosecuted against one of the United Sfates by,Citizens of another State or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. The statutes involved herein are 42 U.S.C.A. $1983, Pusiic Heat AnD Wetrare, Page 98, 28 U.S.C.A. §1331 a(a), Jupiciary anp Jupro1aL Procepure, Page 260, 28 U.S.C.A. §1332 (a) (1), Jupiciary anp JupiciaL Procepure, Page 2, and 28 U.S.C.A. §1343 (3), Jupictary anp JupIcIAL ry Procepure, Page 202. . ; ~ Those statutes provide as follows: (1) 42 U.S. Code Ann. $1983. very person ‘who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regula- ad tion, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to/He subjected, any citizen of the United States or /other person within the juris- diction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the atitu- tion and laws, shall liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. + (2). 28 U.S. Code Ann. §1331(g)-” The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. (3) 28 US. Code Ann... §1332(a) (1)... (a) The district shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy ‘exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between — (1) citizens of different States; (4) 28 US. Code Amn. §1343 (3). The dis- ‘ trict courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance.: regula- tion, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing: for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; eo STATEMENT This is an action by the plaintiff, H. Brent Davis, - aganist the Board of Trustees of Arkansas A & M College and its President Dr. Homer Babin, under provisions of the Civil Rights Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §1343 (3) and 42 U.S.C.A. §1983.° The jurisdiction 6f the District Court was further invoked pursuant to provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. §1332 (a) (1) as between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeded the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The jurisdiction of the District Court was further based on the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. §1331(a) as the matter in controversy exceeded the sum or’value of $10,- 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The plaintiff seeks redress, the deprivation under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by — the Constitution and laws of. the United States. . Both damages and injunctive relief are sought ‘aga result. of | - alleged termination of the plaintiff from employment by the Board of Trustees of: the Arkansas A&M sabia 8 A motion to dismiss the action was filed by the de- fendants pursuant to Rule 12 (b) of th€ Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In our motion to dismiss the de- fendants claim (1) state immunity, (2) the failure. td state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arid (3) hat the complaint is based on a breach of contract in seeking damages in tort. -It is, therefore, urged that the complaint be dismissed (a) because ‘the court has no jurisdiction over the matter or (b) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. rg LL, EY ANAL aE ee ERS SSS | According to the Conitiiiet, H. Brent Davis, plaintiff, a citizen \of thé State of Texas, was employed pursuant to_ a written contract with the Board of Trustees of Arkansas A & M College to teach: in the-Department of Languages and Literature of that Gollege from August 1, 1965 to ; May 31, 1966 at a salary of $6,000.00. Arksnens A & M College is a body corporate created by the General Assembly of Arkansas on April 1, 1909 and governed by a‘Board of Trustees appointed by the Gov- ernor of Arkansas. Ark. Stat. Ann. §§80-3101 et seq. The complaint alleged through “its employee and agent defendant, Dr. Homer Babin,” dismissed plaintiff without stating the reasons for his dismissal and without afford- ing him a hearing in which to answer the charges against him. It®appears that such employment was terminated : ber 31, 1965, in ‘a letter dated October 29, 1965, from President Babin to plaintiff Davis in accordance with a. policy decision made by the Board of Trustees of the Col- . lege at its seheduled meeting October 28, 1965. = = = - - ~~ Plaintiff avers that the termination of his employ- ment was a direet consequence of his activities relating to the abdlition of éorporal punishment in the Arkansas State Penitentiary and the ensuing publicity through the news media; that he had prepared a petition aganist corporal punishment, which was endorsed by “several” students. . The ‘complaint further alleged that defendants, in summarily dismissing planitiff, had deprived him of his constitutional rights guaranteed under the First and Fourtesnth Amendments, and had unlawfully breached the eontract of employment to his irreparable loss, injury _ and harm. nae be ~Plaintiff sought injunctive relief to restore him to his former position with backpay and to restrain the defend- ants from thereafter terminating his employnient by reason of activities protected by the federal constitution: He also. prayed for a judgment for $25,000.00 in damages re- sulting from “family disruption, inconvenience, damages to reputation, inability. to find other employment, and — physical, mental and emotional — ._In its unreported order Delian the motion the Dis- trict Court refrained from specific diseussion of the Eleventh Amendment issue. It found that jurisdiction existed for the reason that’ (a) Arkansas A & M College, organized pursuant to Sections 80-3101 — 30-3102, Ark. Stat. Ann., is a body “politic” and as such may sue and be sued as a legal entity; (b) the Civil Rights Statutes, 28 U.S.C.A. §1343(3) and 42 U.S,C.A. $1983 ‘explicitly confer jurisdiction; (c) the complaint alleges diversity of — citizenship and the requisite jurisdictional amount under —28 U.S.C.A. §1332; (d) there exists a federal question under the privileges and immunities and due process clauses of - the Constitution, 28°U.S.C.A. §1331. In concluding that ©» the complaint also asserted a claim for relief the Court stated: “The Court is of the opinion that such conduct [by the Board of Trustees] subjected the plaintiff to deprivation of his position as-a member of the faculty which raises a question which can be de- termined only by testimony as to the privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution.” | _ The Case was ‘before the-U. S. Court of’ Appeals for. the Eighth Circuit on an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.0.A. §1292(b) from an order of the District Court denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. The . Circuit _ are y Court affirthed the order of the District Court denying de- fendants’ motion to dismiss and defendant’s requested and were granted stays of the mandate.in this case until Sep- tember 16, 1968. The purpose of the stays of mandate being to allow defendants time to petition the U. S. Su- _- preme’ Court for a writ of certiorari to the U. 8. Cireuit ae of Appeals for the — Cireuit. .RGUMENT The reason peng: we feel that certiorari ‘aoa be : . granted in this case is ‘because the 8th Circuit Court of — ‘Appeals has decided an important state question in a way in conflict with applicable state law and has decided a Federal question in a way in conflict with applicable de- i _ cisions of this Court.- We feel that the cases of In're Ayers, 123 U.S. 505, Arkansas -v. Texas, 346 U.S. 368, ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 and the Eleventh Amend- : ment to the United’ States Constitution’ need be recon- ag ciled. _ The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the ® United States provides that the judicial power of ‘the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit, in law or equity, prosecuted against one of the -United States by citizens:of another state. The Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled that a state-college is an agency .of.the State, and, therefore, that the trustees of such a school partake of the State’s immunity to suit. The. Allen Engineering Company v. Kays, 106 Ark. 174, 152 _S.W. 992 (1913). In that case, the Court stated: Appellees have no interest, whatever, in the property, in their individual capacity, nor connec- Jak . tion with it, except as representatives of the State - as trustees ‘of said school. The school, itself, is but a governmental agency, not authorized by the | statutes to sue and be sued and the recovery is. | zs sought under the terms of the contract made with | , this governmtabel agency necessarily involving its. rights and being in effect and infact but a. suit ‘ against the State. - No relief is sought against — appellees in their individual. capacity and none can ~ be had against them as representatives of the. agency of the State and its sovereignty, for our we- . : : ° ———___ ——————— 10 . - Constitution declares: “The State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts.’ Art. 5, §19; Pitcock v. State, 91 Ark. 527; Jobe v. Urquhart, 98 Ark. 525. The egies Court of the United States has followed the same rule when dealing with the Board of Trustees of an Arkansas College or University. Arkansas v. Texas, et al.; 346 U.S. 368, 98 L.ed 80,.74 S.Ct. 109 (1953). - In this case the controversy was: between the Board of gs of the University of Arkansas and the. State®6f exas ex rel. the Attorney General. The problem before ‘the Supreme Court’ was whether the Court had original / jurisdiction. | ar The State of. Texas alleged that the Court did not: have original jurisdiction because the real party was the University of Arkansas Board of | Trustees rather. than the named plaintiff, the State of Arkansas. The Court disposed of this contention by stating: “But as we read Arkansas law the University of Arkansas is ‘an official state instramentality; and we conclude that for purposes of our original jurisdiction any injury under the contract to the University is an injury to Arkansas. ” Arkansas v. Texas, supra, p. 370. Here; the statutes that set up - - The Board of Trustees of Arkansas A. & M.-College are _. similar to the University of Arkansas statutes, and, there- fore, an injury under contract. to Arkansas A. & M. Col- lege is an injury to the State of Arkansas, since the State of. Arkansas is the real party in interest (see also State v. University of Arkansas Board of Trustees, 407 8.W. 2d 916, 241 Ark. 399 [1966]). The ‘United States Baprenic Court, in interpreting Amendment Elever, has ruled that this Amendment “must be held to cover, not only suits brought against a state ap 11 or name, but those also against its officers, aguante, and representatives, where the State, though not named as such,, is, nevertheless, the only real party against which * alone. in fact the relief is asked, and against which. the . judgment or decree effectively operates.’’ .In re Ayers, 8 S.Ct._164, 123 U.S. 505, 31 L.ed. 216 (1887 ). . See, also, — North Carolina v. Temple, 10 8.Ct. 509, 134 US. 30, 33 L.ed. 849 (N.C. 1890); State v. State Boagd of Control, 3 ~~ 102 SE. 688, 85 W.Va. 739 (1920)... Some of the cases construing the Hleventh Arend- mént have been determined ‘on the basis of whether or not . the State officer is acting within the. purview of statu- . tory or constitutional duthority. That question is not applicable to this action because the appellee admits in. paragraphs 6 and 7 of the complaint that the Board of _'Prustees was acting pursuant to. the authority vested in it by the laws of the State of Arkansas in discharging the — plaintiff. .There is no allegation that ine Board ex- — ceeded its authority. However, the complaint alleges that ‘the discharge was motivated by activities by the ap- pellee which are protected by the freedom of speech pro- vision of the United States Constitution. Apparently, it is the -appellee’s theory that-the. statutes which auth- orize the firing are at least partially unconstitutional be- . ' cause they permit an abridgement of the appellee’s free- - dom of speech. This theory has been. specifically re- jected in Parker v. Board of Education of Prince George : County, Maryland, 237~F.Supp. 222, affirmed 348 F.2d _- 464 (4 C.C.A, 1965), wherein: the Court stated: The dactasl allegations * contairied in the com- , plaint, and in plaintiff’s affidavit, show no denial - of freedom’ of ‘speech. It is claimed that Plain-: tiff’s contract was terminated because a complaint , - had been received about his assigning and teach- . 12 ing fromthe book Brave New World, oa that the | book was thereafter removed from the library There is-no allegation that. plaintiff's Cerocmal right to free expression was in any way inhibited by the’ school authorities. - _Even if such allegations were present, they - would afford no grouhd for the relief sought in this case. The right of free speech or expression, like other First Amendment guarantees, is not abso- lute. Where the abridgement of the abstract right of free speech» results from government action © - taken for the protection of other substantial public _rights, no constitutional deprivation will be found to exist, American Communications Ass’n, CIO. v. : _ Douds, "339 . U.S. 382, 70 S.Ct. 674, 94 L.ed 925. (1950). No unconstitutionality results where: the’ right of free speech is reasonably curtained as a prerequisite to*¢ontinued government employment. ‘Ibid, at p. 398; United Public Workers of: America ~ _v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 95, 67 S.Ct. 556 (1947): Opinion of the Justices, - -339 Mass. 785, 127 — , 2d 663 (1955). _ Although the facts in this case have not been - - termined by either a court or a jury, the appellants’ proof ‘will show that Mr. Davis was dismissed ‘not for his stand on corporal punishment in the Penitentiary but for the . inept way: in which he conducted his.class. There were many serious complaints brought to the Board’s attention concerning Mr. Davis, and these have been partially out- — lined ‘in our statement of facts and need not be reiterated . here. It is our contention that. the applicable law has ‘been sent out and that, giving appellee.every benefit: of _ an the doubt, he has no right to pursue his suit against the - State of Arkansas under the Eleventh Amendment to the: ‘United States Constitution. - Therefore, for the above cited reasons, We urge this Court to reverse the lower court. ‘ .18 Sections 4 and 14 of the poe Pe are based on the — alleged breach of contract between the appellee and Ar- kansas A. & M. College. - Jurisdiction ‘is alleged pur- suant to«42 U.S.C.A. §1983, 28 U.S,C.A. $1343(3) and 28 © US.C.A. §1332(a) (1); 42 US.C.Al §1983 states: Every a we ca color of any statute, . ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any — State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be sub- jected, ‘any citizen of the United States or other _ ‘person within the jurisdiction thereof ‘to the depri- vation of any rights, privileges, . or: immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injuréd ih an action at law, suit im equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 28 US.C.A. §1343(3) states the district courts shall — original jurisdiction of any civil action ‘authorized by law to be commenced by any person “ ... (3) To - redress the deprivation, under color of. any State -law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or asage,. of. any ~ right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all. topic within the jurisdiction of the. United States; .:.’’ “These statutes aré concerned with the civil rights of a person. and have nothing to do with a breach of contract, which ‘ was alleged here. Pudlik v. Public Service Commission of Colorado, 166 F.Supp. 921 (D.C. Colo. 1958); see also Hague v, Committee. for Industrial Development; 101 -F.2d 774 (1939), and. Antelope v. George, 211 F.Supp...637° (D.C. Idaho 1962), Arkansas A. & M. College is nofalleged to have violated appellee’s civil rights, ie. such as freedom of speech, because they did not stop appellee from making any statements about any subject. He was djsmissed because of his conduct :in the classroom, and the only effect this had on his freedom cf.speech was taking away - i a forum, ie. a classroom, where he might. espouse his - views. Whether there was a breach of contract has noth- ing to do with the civil rights of the appellee and is a matter outside of the jurisdiction of a federal district court unless diversity of citizenship and an amount in excess E of $10,000 is involved. In order to substantiate damages in excess of $10,000 } Appellee has relied on tortious damages as alleged ‘in. \ . paragraph 15 of the complaint. According to the alle- ” 7, gations in the complaint the origiwil cause of action is { for breach of contract on the part of appellants in dis- charging him from his employment. It is axiomatic that — tortious damages do not apply to breaches of contract such ' \ as appellee has plead. White, Inc. v. Metropolitan Mer- Fail ‘ chandise Mart, Inc., 48 Del. 526, 107 A.2d 892 gl Mabery v. Western Casualty and Surety Co.,- 173 586, 250 P.2d 824 (1952); Smytht v. Fleischmann, 214'S. 263, a3 S.E. 2d 199 (1948). Farther, in paragraph. 15 the eaten of damages and cenclusions are without any connection to the allega- tions in the complaint which allegedly gave rise to this — action. As to breach of contract, the appellee has fajled — * to reduce his damages from the alleged breach of con-_ . . » tract to the amount of: loss the appellee suffered, that is the contract figure should be. reduced by the amount the appellee has-made during thé contratt period. Thus. without the amount claimed in paragraph 15 of the com- | plaint and with the alleged breach of. contract damages being reduged to the amount that should be claimed there — et, is not in excess of $10,000 involved, and diversity of cit- vo izenship would not lies ~ We submit that upon review of the judgment of the ‘Sth .Cireuit Court of Appeals that that. judgment be re: — eae % . . . versed and the cause remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint because the Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. Respectfully submitted, } Joz PuRcet. Attorney General of Arkansas Don Lanoston Deputy Attorney General | _ Attorneys for Petitioers : aaill = ! --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385604_0174%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.