Arthur R. Stewart, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and its denial of his request for a certificate of appealability (COA). Because we agree with the district court that Mr. Stewart has failed to exhaust state remedies, we deny his request for a COA and dismiss this appeal.
Mr. Stewart's claim arises from the alleged failure of the District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, to respond to his "Motion For Discovery/Discharge or Conversion. . . to New Kansas Sentencing Grid."(1) This motion states that under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4724 (2000), Mr. Stewart is eligible for "conversion" of his pre-1993 sentence to new post-1993 guidelines. Such a conversion could potentially shorten his sentence.
Mr. Stewart's Sedgwick County motion was apparently filed on or about June 12, 2000. On August 2, 2000, Mr. Stewart filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. Arguing that the Sedgwick County court had failed to consider his sentencing motion, Mr. Stewart asked the district court to vacate his sentence and award him $2 million in damages. The district court dismissed Mr. Stewart's habeas petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, as his state petition appeared to be still pending. Rec. doc. 3, at 1-2 (Dist. Ct. Order, dated Aug. 7, 2000). On Mr. Stewart's motion for reconsideration, the district court declined to reconsider its decision or grant a certificate of appealability, finding that there was no evidence Mr. Stewart had attempted to pursue his claims in the Kansas appellate courts. It did, however, grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Rec. doc. 7, at 1 (Dist. Ct. Order, dated Sept. 11, 2000).
We construe Mr. Stewart's complaint liberally because he is proceeding pro se, although we will not act as his advocate. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam). It seems that Mr. Stewart is asking for two alternative remedies, based on the alleged failure of the Sedgwick County court to respond to his motion. First, he asks that we order the Sedgwick County court to act on his motion, so as to enable him to immediately proceed through the state appellate process. See Aplt's Br. at 4. This we cannot and should not do, as federal courts have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court. See Olson v. Hart, 965 F.2d 940, 942 (10th Cir. 1992).
In the alternative, if we find the lack of a response from the state court excuses his failure to exhaust state remedies, Mr. Stewart asks that we grant him a certificate of appealability and rule on his habeas motion. See Clayton v. Gibson, 199 F.3d 1162, 1170 (10th Cir. 1999) (noting that "[t]he exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional," and "may be waived by the state or avoided by the petitioner if an attempt to exhaust would be futile.").
We agree with the district court that Mr. Stewart has not made a sufficient attempt to exhaust any available state remedies. If the Sedgwick County court has truly erred in failing to act on his motion, Mr. Stewart's immediate remedy lies with the Kansas appellate courts. As there is no indication that Mr. Stewart has attempted to appeal, or to petition the Supreme Court of Kansas for a writ of mandamus, there is also no indication that such an attempt would be futile. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999) (a state prisoner must "give the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas petition"); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981) (per curiam) (stating that "[a]n exception is made only if there is no opportunity to obtain redress in state court or if the corrective process is so clearly deficient as to render futile any effort to obtain relief.").
In order to obtain a certificate of appealability, an appellant must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Mr. Stewart has made no such showing and his request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
1. This document is appended to Mr. Stewart's brief, but lacks both page numbers and an index number.


text:
A semiconductor device in which a plurality of semiconductor chips are stacked. The semiconductor device includes a lower semiconductor chip bonded onto a surface of a wiring substrate; an upper semiconductor chip; and one or more spacers which are bonded to the surface of the wiring substrate and which support the upper chip over the lower chip and at a location separated from the lower chip. Conductors electrically connect the lower chip to the wiring substrate and extend through the spacers.
The present invention relates generally to a semiconductor device having a Multi Chip Module (MCM) structure and a method of manufacturing such semiconductor device. More particularly, the present invention relates to a semiconductor device and a method of manufacturing such semiconductor device in which a plurality of semiconductor chips are stacked and in which a larger semiconductor chip can be appropriately stacked over a smaller semiconductor chip.
Recently, in order to avoid an expansion of mounting area or areas of semiconductor devices and to increase mounting density, there are proposed various types of semiconductor devices having a stacked MCM structure. For example, there is proposed a semiconductor device having a stacked Chip Size Package (CSP) structure in which a plurality of semiconductor chips are closely stacked and mounted on a wiring board or substrate.
FIG. 3 is a cross sectional view showing a conventional semiconductor device having such stacked CSP structure (prior art 1). In the semiconductor device shown in FIG. 3, a lower side semiconductor chip 102 is bonded onto a surface of a wiring substrate 101 via insulating adhesive and the like, and an upper side semiconductor chip 103 is stacked and bonded onto the lower side semiconductor chip 102 via insulating adhesive and the like. On the surface of the wiring substrate 101, there is formed a wiring layer having wiring patterns (not shown in the drawing) On the top surfaces of the lower side semiconductor chip 102 and of the upper side semiconductor chip 103, there are formed electrodes, i.e., bonding pads, 102 a and 103 a, respectively. These electrodes 102 a and 103 a are coupled with electrodes 101 a formed on the wiring substrate 101 via bonding wires 104 and 105 made of gold and the like, respectively, and thereby the lower side semiconductor chip 102 and the upper side semiconductor chip 103 are electrically coupled with the wiring patterns on the wiring substrate 101.
Also, there are disposed a plurality of solder balls 106 on the backside surface of the wiring substrate 101. The solder balls 106 are coupled with the wiring patterns formed on the surface of the wiring substrate 101 via holes provided in the wiring substrate 101 (not shown in the drawing). Thereby, the lower side semiconductor chip 102 and the upper side semiconductor chip 103 are electrically coupled with the solder balls 106. Further, on the wiring substrate 101, there is formed an encapsulation resin 107 for encapsulating the lower side semiconductor chip 102, the upper side semiconductor chip 103 and the bonding wires 104 and 105.
In the semiconductor device mentioned above, the upper side semiconductor chip 103 disposed on the upside is, for example, a memory IC chip, such as a DRAM device and the like. The lower side semiconductor chip 102 disposed on the downside is, for example, a system IC chip, such as a microprocessor and the like. The size of the upper side semiconductor chip 103 is made smaller than that of the lower side semiconductor chip 102 such that the electrodes of the lower side semiconductor chip 102 on the downside can be exposed.
However, according to an advance in semiconductor technology, the feature size of a semiconductor integrated circuit prescribed by the design rule becomes smaller and smaller. Therefore, the size of a semiconductor chip becomes smaller as the feature size becomes smaller while retaining the same function. Thus, according to the reduction of the feature size, there is a possibility that the size of the lower side semiconductor chip 102 becomes smaller than that of the upper side semiconductor chip 103. In such case, conventionally, the lower side semiconductor chip 102 having a smaller size and the upper side semiconductor chip 103 having a larger size are replaced upside down. That is, the upper side semiconductor chip 103 is mounted on a wiring substrate and the lower side semiconductor chip 102 is mounted on the upper side semiconductor chip 103. Therefore, conventionally, the semiconductor chip having a smaller size is always used as the upper side semiconductor chip and the semiconductor chip having a larger size is always used as the lower side semiconductor chip, so that when both the semiconductor chips are stacked on a wiring substrate, electrodes, i.e., bonding pads, of the semiconductor chip on the lower side are not hidden by the semiconductor chip on the upper side. Thus, it is possible to couple electrodes of the semiconductor chips on both the upper side and lower side with wiring patterns on the wiring substrate via metal wires.
Japanese patent laid-open publication No. 2000-269408 discloses another type of semiconductor device having a stacked MCM structure, which is hereafter referred to as prior art 2. In the semiconductor device of the prior art 2, interference between semiconductor chips caused by stacking or bonding the semiconductor chips directly are avoided and degree of freedom of wiring of the wiring substrate can be improved.
FIG. 4 is a cross sectional view showing the semiconductor device of the prior art 2. In the semiconductor device shown in FIG. 4, on the upper surface of a multi-layer wiring substrate 201, a lower side semiconductor chip 202 is bonded by using adhesive and the like. Electrodes (not shown in the drawing) formed on the upper surface of the multi-layer wiring substrate 201 are coupled with electrodes (not shown in the drawing) formed on the upper surface of the lower side semiconductor chip 202 via bonding wires 203. On the upper surface of the lower side semiconductor chip 202, various circuit elements are also formed. Solder balls 204 are disposed on the under side surface of the multi-layer wiring substrate 201, and are coupled with multi-layer wiring conductors formed on the upper side surface of the multi-layer wiring substrate 201 via holes formed in the substrate 201.
Also, on the multi-layer wiring substrate 201, spacers or dam members 205 are formed which have a height larger than the thickness of the lower side semiconductor chip 202. On the dam member 205, lead portions 206 b of a lead frame 206 are disposed. An upper side semiconductor chip 207 is bonded on a stage portion 206 a of the lead frame 206. Also, electrodes (not shown in the drawing) formed on the upper surface, i.e., the surface on which circuits are formed, of the upper side semiconductor chip 207 are connected to the lead portions 206 b via bonding wires 208. Further, the lead portions 206 b and the multi-layer wiring of the substrate 201 are coupled via bonding wires 209. By this structure, the upper side semiconductor chip 207 is held at a location which is over the lower side semiconductor chip 202 and which is separated from the lower side semiconductor chip 202, and also the upper side semiconductor chip 207 is electrically coupled with the multi-layer wiring substrate 201. Further, these upper side semiconductor chip 207 and lower side semiconductor chip 202, the space between these chips 207 and 202, the dam members 205 and the bonding wires 203, 208 and 209 are encapsulated by an encapsulation resin 210.
However, in the semiconductor device of the above-mentioned prior art 1, when the design rule has changed, it becomes necessary to replace the semiconductor chips upside down. In such case, it is necessary to redesign the wiring substrate and fabricate it again. Therefore, manufacturing costs of the semiconductor device of the prior art 1 become high.
In the semiconductor device of the above-mentioned prior art 2, it is necessary to couple the lead portions 206 b on the dam member 205 with the multi-layer wiring substrate 201 via bonding wires 209. Therefore, bonding times become large, and wiring structure becomes complicated. Also, the lead frame 206 for mounting the upper side semiconductor chip 207 is required. Therefore, manufacturing costs of the semiconductor device the prior art 2 also become high.
Therefore, it is an object of the present invention to provide a semiconductor device having a stacked Multi Chip Module structure in which a larger semiconductor chip can be appropriately stacked over a smaller semiconductor chip, and to provide a method of manufacturing such semiconductor device.
It is another object of the present invention to provide a semiconductor device having a stacked Multi Chip Module structure in which a larger semiconductor chip can be appropriately stacked over a smaller semiconductor chip and which has a simple structure, and to provide a method of manufacturing such semiconductor device.
It is still another object of the present invention to provide a stacked MCM type semiconductor device which can be manufactured at low cost even if the chip size or sizes of the semiconductor device have changed due to the change of the design rule, and to provide a method of manufacturing such semiconductor device.
It is still another object of the present invention to obviate the disadvantages of conventional semiconductor devices having a stacked Multi Chip Module structure.
According to an aspect of the present invention, there is provided a semiconductor device comprising: a wiring substrate; a lower side semiconductor chip bonded onto a surface of the wiring substrate; an upper side semiconductor chip; one or more spacers which are bonded onto the surface of the wiring substrate and which support the upper side semiconductor chip over the lower side semiconductor chip and at a location separated from the lower side semiconductor chip; conductors which electrically couple the upper side semiconductor chip and the lower side semiconductor chip with the wiring substrate; and an encapsulating resin portion which encapsulates the upper side semiconductor chip, the lower side semiconductor chip, the one or more spacers and the conductors on the wiring substrate.
In this case, it is preferable that the size of the upper side semiconductor chip is larger than that of the lower side semiconductor chip.
It is also preferable that lower end portion or portions and upper end portion or portions of the one or more spacers are bonded to the wiring substrate and the upper side semiconductor chip, respectively, via insulating adhesive.
It is further preferable that the wiring substrate and the one or more spacers are bonded via the conductors interposed therebetween and by using insulating adhesive.
It is advantageous that the one or more spacers comprise a single spacer member.
It is also advantageous that the one or more spacers comprise a plurality of spacer members.
It is further advantageous that the semiconductor device further comprises solder bumps disposed on the backside of the wiring substrate.
It is preferable that the lower side semiconductor chip is a system IC chip and the upper side semiconductor chip is a memory IC chip.
It is also preferable that the conductors are bonding wires made of gold or gold alloy.
According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising: preparing a wiring substrate; mounting a lower side semiconductor chip onto a surface of the wiring substrate; electrically coupling the lower side semiconductor chip with the wiring substrate via conductors; bonding one or more spacers onto the surface of the wiring substrate by using insulating adhesive; bonding an upper side semiconductor chip onto the one or more spacers by using insulating adhesive to support the upper side semiconductor chip over the lower side semiconductor chip and at a location separated from the lower side semiconductor chip; electrically coupling the upper side semiconductor chip with the wiring substrate via conductors; and encapsulating the upper side semiconductor chip, the lower side semiconductor chip, the one or more spacers and the conductors on the wiring substrate 1 with encapsulating resin.
In this case, it is preferable that, in the bonding one or more spacers onto the surface of the wiring substrate by using insulating adhesive, the one or more spacers are bonded onto the wiring substrate via the conductors interposed therebetween.
It is also preferable that the size of the upper side semiconductor chip is larger than that of the lower side semiconductor chip.
It is further preferable that the one or more spacers comprise a single spacer member.
It is advantageous that the one or more spacers comprise a plurality of spacer members.
It is also advantageous that the method further comprises disposing solder bumps on the backside of the wiring substrate.
In the above-mentioned semiconductor device, when a plurality of semiconductor chips are stacked on a wiring substrate, a semiconductor chip disposed upside is supported over a semiconductor chip disposed below by using spacer or spacers. Therefore, even when the size of the semiconductor chip disposed below becomes smaller than that of the semiconductor chip disposed upside, it is possible to easily realize electrical connection between the semiconductor chip disposed below and the wiring substrate.
By using insulating adhesive to bond the spacer or spacers with the wiring substrate, it is possible to bond the spacer or spacers with the wiring substrate via the conductive wires which are interposed therebetween and which electrically couple the semiconductor chip disposed downside and the wiring substrate. Therefore, it is not necessary to previously reserve area or areas on the wiring substrate for bonding the spacers.
FIG. 4 is a cross sectional view showing a conventional semiconductor device as a prior art 2.
With reference to the attached drawings, an explanation will now be made on a semiconductor device according to an embodiment of the present invention and on a method of manufacturing such semiconductor device.
FIG. 1 is a cross sectional view showing a semiconductor device according to an embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 1, the semiconductor device according to the embodiment of the present invention comprises a wiring substrate 1 which has multilayer wirings formed on the upper surface thereof. On the upper surface of the wiring substrate 1, a lower side semiconductor chip 2 is bonded via insulating adhesive and the like. The lower side semiconductor chip 2 is, for example, a system IC comprising a microprocessor and the like. The upside surface of the lower side semiconductor chip 2 is an active surface or a circuit forming surface on which various circuit elements and the like are formed. In the periphery of the active surface of the lower side semiconductor chip 2, there are formed electrodes or bonding pads 2 a. The bonding pads 2 a are coupled with electrodes 1 a formed on the upper surface of the wiring substrate 1, via wiring conductors or bonding wires 3 which are made, for example, of gold, gold alloy or the like. Thereby, the lower side semiconductor chip 2 are electrically coupled with the wiring substrate 1.
On the under side of the wiring substrate 1, there are disposed solder bumps or solder balls 4. The solder bumps 4 are electrically coupled with wiring portions on the upper surface of the wiring substrate 1, via holes (not shown in the drawing) of the wiring substrate 1. Also, spacer or spacers 5 are disposed on upper side of the wiring substrate 1 and at the sides of the lower side semiconductor chip 2. The spacer or spacers 5 are joined by using insulating adhesive 5 a onto the wiring substrate 1, via the bonding wires 3 interposed therebetween. The spacer or spacers 5 have a height higher than the thickness of the lower side or under side semiconductor chip 2. Also, an upper side semiconductor chip 6 is joined or bonded onto the upper surfaces of the spacer or spacers 5 by using insulating adhesive 5 b.
The spacer or spacers 5 support the upper side semiconductor chip 6, and, therefore, the number, shape, material and the like can be any one, as long as they can appropriately support the upper side semiconductor chip 6 over the lower side semiconductor chip 2. For example, the number of the spacer or spacers 5 can be one, two, four or any other number. The spacer 5 can be one ring-shaped member surrounding the lower side semiconductor chip 2. It is also possible to dispose a plurality of spacers along the sides of the lower side semiconductor chip 2. The spacer or spacers 5 can comprise two spacer members one of which is disposed at one side of the lower side semiconductor chip 2 and the other one of which is disposed at the opposing side. Since the spacer or spacers 5 are bonded onto the wiring substrate 1 by using insulating adhesive, it is possible to bond the spacer or spacers 5 onto the wiring substrate 1 in condition the metal wires 3 are interposed between the spacer or spacers 5 and the wiring substrate 1. Therefore, high degree of freedom of bonding location of the spacer or spacers 5 can be obtained. The spacer or spacers 5 are preferably made of insulating material, for example, resin, ceramic or the like. Also, the spacer or spacers 5 can be made of metal, if they are insulated from the metal wires 3 via, for example, the insulating adhesive 5 a. Further, the spacer or spacers 5 can be joined onto the wiring substrate 1 at the location or locations the metal wires 3 are not disposed.
The upper side semiconductor chip 6 is, for example, a memory IC chip such as a DRAM device and the like. The upside surface of the upper side semiconductor chip 6 is an active surface or a circuit forming surface on which various circuit elements and the like are formed. In the periphery of the active surface of the upper side semiconductor chip 6, there are formed electrodes or bonding pads 6 a. The bonding pads 6 a are coupled with electrodes 1 a formed on the upper surface of the wiring substrate 1, via wiring conductors or bonding wires 7 which are made, for example, of gold, gold alloy or the like. Thereby, the upper side semiconductor chip 6 are electrically coupled with the wiring substrate 1.
Further, on the wiring substrate 1, there is formed an encapsulation resin 8 which encapsulates the lower side semiconductor chip 2, the upper side semiconductor chip 6, the spacer or spacers 5, and the metal wires 3 and 7 which couple these components.
An explanation will now be made on a method of manufacturing the above-mentioned semiconductor device. First, onto the wiring substrate 1, the lower side semiconductor chip 2 is bonded by using insulating adhesive. Also, the lower side semiconductor chip 2 and the wiring substrate 1 are coupled by wire bonding. That is, the lower side semiconductor chip 2 and the wiring substrate 1 are electrically coupled by the bonding wires 3. Next, spacer or spacers 5 made, for example, of metal, resin or the like are bonded onto the wiring substrate 1 at the outside portion or portions of the lower side semiconductor chip 2, by using the insulating adhesive 5 a. Since the spacer or spacers 5 are bonded onto the wiring substrate 1 by using insulating adhesive, it is possible to interpose the bonding wires 3, which couple the lower side semiconductor chip 2 with the wiring substrate 1, between the spacer or spacers 5 and the wiring substrate 1. Then, the upper side semiconductor chip 6 having a larger size than that of the lower side semiconductor chip 2 is bonded on the spacer or spacers 5 by using insulating adhesive 5 b. The upper side semiconductor chip 6 and the wiring substrate 1 are then electrically coupled via bonding wires 7, by wire bonding. Thereafter, whole area of the device is encapsulated by the encapsulation resin 8. Then, solder balls 4 are bonded from the backside of the wiring substrate 1.
With reference to FIG. 2A through FIG. 2C, an explanation will be made on the advantageous effect of the semiconductor device according to the present invention. FIG. 2A is a cross sectional view showing a schematic structure of a semiconductor device before the design rule is changed. FIG. 2B and FIG. 2C are cross sectional views showing semiconductor devices after the design rule is changed. FIG. 2B and FIG. 2C show the semiconductor device according to the above-mentioned embodiment of the present invention and the conventional semiconductor device fabricated in accordance with the prior art 1, respectively.
FIG. 2A shows the semiconductor device mentioned above with reference to FIG. 3. As shown in FIG. 2A, usually, when a plurality of (two, in FIG. 2A) semiconductor chips are closely stacked on a wiring substrate 11, A-chip 12 on the lower side has a size larger than that of B-chip 13 on the upper side, so that electrodes not shown in the drawing formed on the upper surface of the A-chip 12 on the lower side are exposed. That is, among the semiconductor chips to be stacked on a wiring substrate 11, a semiconductor chip having a smaller size is stacked on a semiconductor chip having a larger size. These A-chip 12 and B-chip 13 are electrically coupled with the wiring substrate 11 via metal wires 14. On the backside or lower side surface of the wiring substrate 11, there are disposed a plurality of solder balls 15.
In such semiconductor device shown in FIG. 2A, when the design rule of the semiconductor chip or chips is reduced and the size of the A-chip 12 on the lower side becomes smaller than that of the B-chip 13 of upside, conventionally, it was necessary to replace the A-chip 12 and the B-chip 13. That is, as shown in FIG. 2C, the semiconductor chips are disposed upside down, so that a larger B-chip 13 a is mounted downside and a smaller A-chip 12 a is mounted upside. However, when the semiconductor chips are to be mounted upside down, it is necessary to re-design wiring patterns of the wiring substrate 11 and to again fabricate a new wiring substrate 11 a in which the B-chip 13 a can be mounted downside and the A-chip 12 a can be mounted upside on the B-chip 13 a.
On the other hand, in the semiconductor device according to the present invention, when the size or sizes of semiconductor chips are changed and the size of the A-chip 12 on the lower side becomes smaller than that of the B-chip 13 of upside, it is not necessary to replace the semiconductor chips upside down. That is, as shown in FIG. 2B, it is possible to mount the A-chip 12 a having a smaller size on the wiring substrate 11, and to mount the B-chip 13 a having a larger size over the A-chip 12 a via spacer or spacers 16. In this way, since the semiconductor chips are not replaced upside down, it is not necessary to re-design wiring patterns of the wiring substrate 11 and it is not necessary to fabricate a wiring substrate having different wiring patterns again. Therefore, when compared with the structure in which the semiconductor chips are replaced upside down, it is possible to save manufacturing costs and time.
According to the above-mentioned embodiment, in the semiconductor device in which a plurality of semiconductor chips are mounted or stacked on a wiring substrate, an upper side semiconductor chip is supported over and separately from a lower side semiconductor chip, by spacer or spacers. Therefore, the size of the semiconductor chip disposed upside can be larger than that of the semiconductor chip disposed downside. Thus, when the lower side semiconductor chip becomes smaller than the size of the upper side semiconductor chip due to the reduction of a design rule, it is not necessary to replace the semiconductor chips upside down. Also, it is not necessary to re-design wiring patterns of the wiring substrate and it is not necessary to re-fabricate the wiring substrate.
The present invention can also be advantageously applied to a semiconductor device in which the upper side semiconductor chip should be separated from the lower side semiconductor chip. For example, the structure according to the present invention can be advantageously used in case there occurs an electric or magnetic interference between the upper semiconductor chip and the lower semiconductor chip to be stacked if they are directly bonded together. Also, the structure according to the present invention can be advantageously used in case there occurs thermal stress at the bonded portion between the upper semiconductor chip and the lower semiconductor chip to be stacked if they are closely bonded together by using, for example, adhesive. In such case, when compared with the structure of the above-mentioned prior art 2, the structure according to the present invention can be simpler and manufacturing costs can be lower.
Also, in the above-mentioned embodiment, the semiconductor chip disposed upside has a larger size than that of the semiconductor chip disposed downside. However, the present invention can be applied to various other cases. For example, when the upper side semiconductor chip and/or the lower side semiconductor chip have rectangular shape, if the long side of the upper side semiconductor chip is longer than the short side of the lower side semiconductor chip, it is possible to use the above-mentioned structure according to the present invention. That is, the upper side semiconductor chip and the lower side semiconductor chip are disposed such that the long side of the upper side semiconductor chip becomes parallel to the short side of the lower side semiconductor chip. Thereby, the upper side semiconductor chip can be supported over the lower side semiconductor chip, by using the spacer or spacers, as in the embodiment mentioned above.
As mentioned above, according to the present invention, in a semiconductor device having an stacked MCM structure in which a plurality of semiconductor chips are mounted on a wiring substrate, even when the size of a semiconductor chip formerly disposed downside becomes smaller than that of a semiconductor chip disposed upside due to the reduction of the design rule of semiconductor chip or chips, it is not necessary to replace the semiconductor chips upside down. According to the present invention, it is possible to mount a plurality of semiconductor chips on the wiring substrate such that the semiconductor chip having a larger size is located over the semiconductor chip having a smaller size. Therefore, it is not necessary to re-design wiring patterns of the wiring substrate and it is not necessary to re-fabricate the wiring substrate, so that manufacturing costs of a semiconductor device can be greatly saved.
In the foregoing specification, the invention has been described with reference to specific embodiments. However, one of ordinary skill in the art appreciates that various modifications and changes can be made without departing from the scope of the present invention as set forth in the claims below. Accordingly, the specification and figures are to be regarded in an illustrative sense rather than a restrictive sense, and all such modifications are to be included within the scope of the present invention. Therefore, it is intended that this invention encompasses all of the variations and modifications as falling within the scope of the appended claims.
second conductors that electrically connect said second semiconductor device to said wiring pattern on said periphery.
2. The device of claim 1, wherein said first conductors extend over said first surface through said spacer.
3. The device of claim 2, wherein said spacer comprises an adhesive for attaching said spacer and said first conductors extend through said adhesive.
4. The device of claim 1, wherein said second semiconductor device has a larger areal extent than said first semiconductor device.
5. The device of claim 1, wherein said spacer comprises plural spacer members.
6. The device of claim 1, further comprising solder bumps on a second surface of said substrate opposite said first surface.
second conductors that electrically connect said second semiconductor device to said wiring pattern.
8. The device of claim 7, wherein said second semiconductor device has a larger areal extent than said first semiconductor device.
9. The device of claim 7, wherein said spacer comprises plural spacer members.
10. The device of claim 7, further comprising solder bumps on a second surface of said substrate opposite said first surface.
11. The device of claim 7, wherein said wiring pattern is on a periphery of said first surface.
electrically connecting the second semiconductor device to the wiring pattern on the periphery with second conductors.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the first conductors are extended over the first surface through the spacer.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the spacer is attached with an adhesive and the first conductors extend through the adhesive.
15. The method of claim 12, further comprising the step of forming solder bumps on a second surface of the substrate opposite the first surface.

matches:
art 1
art 2
art 2
art 2
art 1
art 1
art 2
art 2
art 2
art 1
art 2


Los Angeles, CA – Trademark and copyright attorneys for Guru Denim filed a trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and Lanham Act § 43(a) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125) complaint at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles to stop sales of allegedly counterfeit knock-offs of its True Religion® brand of jeans. Guru Denim has sought copyright, patent, and trademark protection on its garments and jeans. Guru Denim owns U.S. Patent No. D547530 for the stitch pattern applied to True Religion Brand Jeans pants. Guru Denim owns two U.S. Copyright Registrations for the True Religion Brand Jeans Designs, Copyright Certificate of Registration numbers VA1-192-834 and VA1-301-845.
Guru Denim owns a USPTO registered trademark in the pocket stitching pattern that appears on True Religion Brand Jeans pants and the overall stitching pattern on the front of True Religion Brand Jeans pants. Guru Denim also has 4 USPTO registered trademarks for “True Religion Brand Jeans” with assorted designs. Finally, Guru Denim has registered its “True Religion” word marks with the USPTO.
Guru Denim’s investigators discovered that numerous defendants were selling allegedly fake and counterfeit True Religion® jeans in their retail stores. The complaint states that the Los Angeles Police Department executed search warrants on some of the defendants’ premises and seized numerous allegedly counterfeit True Religion® apparel. The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §1114; (2) Federal copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §501; (3) False designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a); (4) Trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. §1125(c) and California Business & Professions Code §14330; and (5) Common law copyright infringement under California Civil Code §980. The case is titled Guru Denim, Inc. v. Hercel Zarrabian, et al., CV 08-07395 R (C.D. Cal. 2008).
PRACTICE NOTE: Guru Denim has used different forms of intellectual property to provide the broadest possible scope of protection to its products and business. Patent, trademark and copyright protection can overlap and protect different aspects of the same product and prevent unfair competition and infringing conduct that can affect your business.
The complaint lists the following retail outlets as defendants: LA View, VIP Connection, Stand Out, Plush AKA Club Unisex Clothing, Players 96, Buba Fashion, Diva Fashion, Mufy Fashion, Guvi Outlet, Lizz’s Closet, Styles 4 U, Allure Clothing, King of Music and Fashion, Allure Clothing, and Attitude.


§ 72-3 Determination of buildings to be numbered.
§ 72-4 Designation of numbers; review of determination.
§ 72-5 Duty of building owners.
§ 72-6 Size and display of numbers.
§ 72-7 Display of other numbers prohibited.
§ 72-8 Private road signs.
§ 72-9 Noncompliance; notice; remedy; costs.
§ 72-10 Penalties for offenses.
Property maintenance — See Ch. 129.
Sullivan County, New York, has implemented an enhanced 911 telephone system whereby an individual will be able to dial a 911 telephone number in the event of an emergency. A Town-wide uniform numbering system of all buildings will assist emergency personnel in responding efficiently and quickly to an emergency. It is, therefore, in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the Town of Forestburgh to enact this chapter.
The principal building or buildings on each lot, and shall not include any accessory building.
The street designated in the property address.
The 911 Coordinator and, in the absence of the 911 Coordinator, the Building Inspector shall be authorized to decide which building or buildings on any particular lot shall be numbered.
The 911 Coordinator and, in the absence of the 911 Coordinator, the Building Inspector shall designate separate numbers for buildings which have no designated street number, and they shall also have the authority to redesignate numbers for buildings when deemed necessary.
Any property owner aggrieved by the determination of the 911 Coordinator or Building Inspector may seek review of that determination by the Town Board of the Town of Forestburgh upon a written request to the Town Supervisor setting forth the reasons for seeking such review. The Town Board may uphold, modify or change the determination of the 911 Coordinator or Building Inspector, and such determination shall be final and binding.
It shall be the duty of every owner and/or every occupant/tenant of a building in the Town of Forestburgh to cause to be displayed thereon the street number of said building on a building, post, or other structure at or within 20 feet of the edge of the road surface. The post, or other nonbuilding structure, nay only be used for the purposes of this chapter if it is stationed on the same side of the street as the building or premises for which the number is intended. At all times, the owner and/or occupant/tenant of a building shall maintain such number in compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
Residential properties (noncommercial). The figures comprising the number are to be reflective and at least four inches in height and shall be placed on the front of said building or on a post of at least four feet in height and not exceeding 10 feet in height or other structure in a prominent and conspicuous place and in such a manner as to be plainly legible and visible from the center of the street when facing the building at all times between sunrise and sunset. At no times will said numbers be placed on any door; front, garage, or otherwise. The color of said figures shall be in sharp contrast to the color of their background. So far as the purpose or intent of this chapter is concerned, the front of a building shall be construed as that side of the building which faces the street of address, and the number or numbers shall be displayed on such side of such building or premises.
Commercial property (nonresidential). The criteria shall be the same for commercial property as in Subsection A except that the numbers shall be at least six inches in height.
In all cases, the numbers shall be so placed that they may be seen from either direction while driving on the road or street, and they shall not be obstructed by trees, shrubbery, porches or other extensions of the building, or shoveled or plowed snow.
Wherever practicable, said number shall be placed near some light or source of illumination so that it may be readily seen at night.
Where the front of the building on which the number is to be displayed is more than 20 feet from the edge of the street of address of the street or road serving the building, the number shall, in addition to the other requirements of this chapter, be displayed on a post, mailbox or other structure visible from the street and in no event farther back than 20 feet from said street and stationed on the same side of the street as the building or premises for which it is intended.
In the event that more than one house has access from a single driveway, a street number of the house must be displayed at each location at which the driveway access diverges from the common access.
The display of any house number other than the number authorized or assigned by the 911 Coordinator or Building Inspector is expressly prohibited.
Private road signs must be erected and maintained by the property owner or owners on said road. Private road signs must have white lettering on a blue background. Newly created private roads must have a road name approved by the Town's 911 Coordinator prior to subdivision approval and, prior to approval, the Planning Board and the owner must notify the Town's Highway Superintendent, Town Building Inspector, appropriate Fire Department, Town Police Department, local Ambulance Corps and school bus garage of the new road name and location.
Noncompliance deemed a violation. Any person, corporation, partnership, or other entity owning a building within the Town of Forestburgh failing or neglecting for 60 days after the initial notice from their respective post office of their new number to place the proper designated number on said building shall be deemed in violation of this chapter.
Nonmaintenance deemed a violation. Any person, corporation, partnership, or other entity owning a building within the Town of Forestburgh failing to maintain house numbers as provided herein shall be deemed in violation of this chapter.
Any person, corporation, partnership or other entity owning property on a private road within the Town of Forestburgh who fails to erect and maintain a private road sign as provided herein shall be deemed in violation of this chapter.
Service of notice. The notice provided for herein may be given by personal service or by certified mailing to the last known address of the owner as shown on the last assessment roll on file in the Assessor's office of the Town of Forestburgh.
Numbering of building by Town. In the event of the failure, neglect or refusal of any owner and/or occupant/tenant, after notice, to cause said building to be properly numbered, the Building Inspector of the Town of Forestburgh shall cause said building to be properly numbered.
Report; assessment of costs. The Building Inspector shall report the cost of numbering said building to the Town Board, and such board shall order said cost assessed as a lien against the property of the owner and collected in the same manner as other Town taxes.
Any person, corporation, partnership or other entity violating any of the provisions of this chapter, shall, upon conviction, be punishable by a fine not to exceed $250. Each calendar week or portion thereof that said violation continues shall be deemed a separate violation.


23A-49-1 Real property subject to forfeiture for crime listed in chapter 34-20B or 22-24A.
23A-49-2 Conveyance used in common carrier business not subject to forfeiture--Exception.
23A-49-3 Stolen and leased conveyances not subject to forfeiture--Exception.
23A-49-4 Conveyance not subject to forfeiture for acts or omissions of nonowner--Exception.
23A-49-5 Item not subject to forfeiture for act or omission without owner's knowledge or consent.
23A-49-6 Victim protected against forfeiture by victim immunity.
23A-49-7 Seizure of property by court process.
23A-49-8 Seizure of property without court process.
23A-49-9 Time for instituting proceedings.
23A-49-10 Seized property subject only to order of court or official.
23A-49-11 Attorney general action with respect to seized property.
23A-49-12 Property subject to security interest--Action by attorney general.
23A-49-13 Civil action--Standard of proof.
23A-49-14 Procedure in forfeiture proceedings involving property other than real property or conveyances.
23A-49-15 Procedure in forfeiture proceedings involving real property or conveyances.
23A-49-16 Service of process by mail where person released on bail.
23A-49-17 Answer by party in interest.
23A-49-18 Disposition of property by court where no appearance made.
23A-49-19 Trial--Disposition of property by court.
23A-49-20 Attorney general's disposition of forfeited property.
23A-49-1. Real property subject to forfeiture for crime listed in chapter 34-20B or 22-24A. All real property, including any right, title, and interest in the whole of any platted lot or tract of land which is measured in three hundred twenty acre increments, or all of any smaller amount and any appurtenances or improvements, which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit or to facilitate the commission of a violation of any crime listed in chapter 34-20B or 22-24A, is subject to forfeiture under this section. Forfeiture under this chapter of real property encumbered by a bona fide security interest is subject to the interest of the secured party unless the secured party had actual knowledge of the act upon which the forfeiture is based. Notice of forfeiture proceedings shall be given each owner or secured party whose right, title, or interest is of record, at the time of the seizure, with the secretary of state or the register of deeds in the county where the real property is located. A person claiming a security interest bears the burden of establishing that interest by a preponderance of the evidence. No real property may be forfeited under the provisions of this chapter by reason of any act committed by a person other than an owner of the property unless that owner had actual knowledge that the real property was used or intended for use in any of the manners set forth in the chapters listed in § 23A-49-20.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 1.
23A-49-2. Conveyance used in common carrier business not subject to forfeiture--Exception. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 34-20B-70(4) or 22-24A-15(4), no conveyance used by any person as a common carrier in the transaction of business as a common carrier may be forfeited under the provisions of this chapter, unless it appears that the owner or other person in charge of the conveyance was a consenting party or privy to a violation of any crime in the chapters listed in § 23A-49-20.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 2.
23A-49-3. Stolen and leased conveyances not subject to forfeiture--Exception. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 34-20B-70(4) or 22-24A-15(4), no conveyance may be forfeited under the provisions of this chapter, by reason of any act or omission established by the owner of the conveyance to have been committed or omitted by any person other than the owner while the conveyance was unlawfully in the possession of a person other than the owner in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, or while the conveyance was rented or leased from a motor vehicle dealer or a leasing or rental agency and the dealer or agency had no knowledge that the conveyance was being used or intended for use, to transport or in any manner facilitate the commission of any crime in the chapters listed in § 23A-49-20.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 3.
23A-49-4. Conveyance not subject to forfeiture for acts or omissions of nonowner--Exception. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 34-20B-70(4) or 22-24A-15(4), no conveyance may be forfeited under the provisions of this chapter, by reason of any act committed or omitted by a person other than an owner of the conveyance unless the owner knew or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known that the conveyance was being used or was intended for use to facilitate the commission of any crime in the chapters listed in § 23A-49-20.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 4.
23A-49-5. Item not subject to forfeiture for act or omission without owner's knowledge or consent. To the extent of the interest of an owner, a thing of value is not subject to forfeiture under this chapter by reason of any act or omission that is established by the owner of the item to have been committed or omitted without the owner's knowledge or consent.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 5.
23A-49-6. Victim protected against forfeiture by victim immunity. Any victim of a crime as described in the provisions of §§ 22-19A-1, 22-24A-1 to 22-24A-20, inclusive, 22-24B-1, 22-49-1 to 22-49-3, inclusive, and 43-43B-1 to 43-43B-3, inclusive, is protected against loss of property through forfeiture by victim immunity as described in § 22-48-2.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 6.
23A-49-7. Seizure of property by court process. Any property subject to forfeiture under this chapter may be seized by any law enforcement officer or designated agent of the Division of Criminal Investigation upon process issued by any court having jurisdiction over the property.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 7.
(4) The law enforcement officer or agent has probable cause to believe that the property has been used or intended to be used in violation of crimes in the chapters listed in § 23A-49-20.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 8.
23A-49-9. Time for instituting proceedings. If a seizure pursuant to § 23A-49-7 or subdivisions 23A-49-8(1), (3), or (4) occurs, the attorney general shall institute, within sixty days of the seizure, the proceedings pursuant to § 23A-49-14 or 23A-49-15.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 9.
23A-49-10. Seized property subject only to order of court or official. No property taken or detained pursuant to this chapter is replevinable or subject to an action in claim and delivery. However, the property is deemed to be in the custody of the attorney general, subject only to the orders and decrees of the court or the official having jurisdiction over the property.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 10.
(3) Take custody of the property and remove it to an appropriate location for disposition in accordance with law.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 11.
(3) Return the property to the possession of the secured party and require the secured party to sell the property within sixty days of receipt of the property from the attorney general at public or private sale and retain all proceeds necessary to satisfy fully all indebtedness of the secured party secured by the property together with all reasonable costs of the sale and remit to the attorney general all excess proceeds within thirty days of the sale.
If the secured party knew or should have known, that the property was being used or intended for use to facilitate in the commission of a crime, the provisions of this section do not apply to the property.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 12.
23A-49-13. Civil action--Standard of proof. Any forfeiture proceeding is a civil action against the property seized and the standard of proof shall be preponderance of the evidence.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 13.
23A-49-14. Procedure in forfeiture proceedings involving property other than real property or conveyances. If property described in subdivisions 34-20B-70(2), (3), (5), (6), and (7) or 22-24A-15(2), (3), (5), (6), and (7) is seized, the attorney general shall file a summons and complaint for forfeiture of the property in circuit court for the county in which the property was seized or is being held. The proceedings shall be brought in the name of the state. The complaint shall describe the property, and state the property's location, the property's present custodian, the name of each owner if known, the name of each party in interest if known or of legal record, and allege the essential elements of the violation that is claimed to exist. The complaint shall conclude with a prayer to enforce the forfeiture. Notice of a forfeiture proceeding shall be given to each known owner and known party in interest by serving a copy of the summons and complaint in accordance with § 23A-49-15. The procedure governing the proceedings, except as provided in this section, shall be the same as that prescribed for civil proceedings by chapter 15-6.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 14.
23A-49-15. Procedure in forfeiture proceedings involving real property or conveyances. If property described in § 23A-49-1 or subdivision 34-20B-70(4) or 22-24A-15(4) is seized, the attorney general shall file a summons and complaint for forfeiture of the property in circuit court of the county in which the property was seized or is being held. The proceedings shall be brought in the name of the state. The complaint shall describe the property, and state the property's location, the property's present custodian, the name of each owner if known, the name of each party in interest if known or of legal record, and allege the essential elements of the violation that is claimed to exist. The complaint shall conclude with a prayer to enforce the forfeiture. The procedure governing the proceedings, except as provided by this section, shall be the same as that prescribed for civil proceedings by chapter 15-6. Notice of forfeiture proceedings shall be given to each owner and party in interest whose right, title, or interest is of record as provided in § 23A-49-1 or to the Department of Revenue or the Division of Aeronautics or a similar department of another state if the records are maintained in that state by serving a copy of the summons and complaint upon each known owner and known party in interest in accordance with title 15.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 15.
23A-49-16. Service of process by mail where person released on bail. If a person as described in §§ 23A-49-14 and 23A-49-15 is released on bail as provided by chapter 23A-43, a summons and complaint for forfeiture of the property may be served by mailing the summons and complaint by certified mail, no return receipt required, to the address left by the person upon release from confinement.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 16.
23A-49-17. Answer by party in interest. Within thirty days after the service of the notice pursuant to § 23A-49-14 or 23A-49-15, the owner of the seized property and any other party in interest or claimant may file a verified answer to the claims described in the complaint instituting the forfeiture proceedings.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 17.
23A-49-18. Disposition of property by court where no appearance made. If at the end of thirty days after the notice has been served there is no verified answer on file and no claimant has appeared to defend the complaint, the court shall order the disposition of the seized property as requested in the complaint.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 18.
23A-49-19. Trial--Disposition of property by court. If a verified answer is filed, the forfeiture proceedings shall be set for a trial on a day not more than one hundred eighty days from the date of the filing. Any party may demand a trial by jury for the forfeiture proceedings pursuant to § 15-6-38(b). At the trial, the state shall establish probable cause for instituting the forfeiture action following which any owner, party in interest, or claimant who has filed a verified answer has the burden of proving that the property seized is not subject to forfeiture under this chapter. If the court or a jury finds that the property is not subject to forfeiture under this chapter, the court shall order the property released to the owner, party in interest, or claimant according to the person's right, title, or interest. The court shall order the property forfeited if the court or a jury determines that the property was subject to forfeiture.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 19.
(3) If property is seized pursuant to a violation of chapters 34-20B or 22-42, the attorney general may forward it to the Division of Criminal Investigation for disposition. Such disposition may include delivery for medical or scientific use to any federal or state agency under regulations of the United States attorney general.
Source: SL 2016, ch 138, § 20.


text:
State of NEW YORK et al.
Argued March 29, 1972 on Exceptions to Report of Special Master.
Decree Published June 19, 1972.
Pennsylvania brought this original action against New York to determine the authority of States to escheat, or take custody of, unclaimed funds paid to Western Union Telegraph Co. for purchase of money orders. The Special Master, following Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U.S. 674, 85 S.Ct. 626, 13 L.Ed.2d 596, recommended that any sum held by Western Union unclaimed for the time period prescribed by state statute may be escheated or taken into custody by the State in which the company's records placed the creditor's address, whether the creditor be the payee of an unpaid draft, the sender of a money order entitled to a refund, or an individual whose claim has been erroneously underpaid; and where the records show no address, or where the State in which the creditor's address falls has no applicable escheat law, the right to escheat or take custody shall be in the debtor's domiciliary State, here New York. The recommended decree is adopted and entered, and the cause is remanded to the Special Master for a proposed supplemental decree with respect to the distribution of the costs to the States of the inquiry as to available addresses. Pp. 208 216.
Hermann Rosenberger II, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
F. Michael Ahern, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn., for intervenor plaintiff State of Conn.
Winifred L. Wentworth, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant State of Fla.
Julius Greenfield, New York City, for defendant State of New York.
'Western Union is a corporation chartered under New York law with its principal place of business in that State. It also does business and has offices in all the other States except Alaska and Hawaii (as well as) in the District of Columbia, and in foreign countries, and was from 1916 to 1934 subject to regulation by the I.C.C. and since then by the F.C.C. In addition to sending telegraphic messages throughout its world-wide system, it carries on a telegraphic money order business which commonly works like this. A sender goes to a Western Union office, fills out an application and gives it to the company clerk who waits on him together with the money to be sent and the charges for sending it. A receipt is given the sender and a telegraph message is transmitted to the company's office nearest to the payee directing that office to pay the money order to the payee. The payee is then notified and upon properly identifying himself is given a negotiable draft, which he can either endorse and cash at once or keep for use in the future. If the payee cannot be located for delivery of the notice, or fails to call for the draft within 72 hours, the office of destination notifies the sending office. This office then notifies the original sender of the failure to deliver and makes a refund, as it makes payments to payees, by way of a negotiable draft which may be either cashed immediately or kept for use in the future.
'In the thousands of money order transactions carried on by the company, it sometimes happens that it can neither make payment to the payee nor make a refund to the sender. Similarly payees and senders who accept drafts as payment or refund sometimes fail to cash them. For this reason large sums of money due from Western Union for undelivered money orders and unpaid drafts accumulate over the years in the company's offices and bank accounts throughout the country.' Id., at 72—73, 82 S.Ct., at 200.
In 1953 Pennsylvania began state proceedings under its escheat statute4 to take custody of those unclaimed funds, held by Western Union, that arose from money order purchases in the company's Pennsylvania offices. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a judgment for the State of about $40,000, Commonwealth by Gottlieb v. Western Union, 400 Pa. 337, 162 A.2d 617 (1960), but this Court reversed, Western Union v. Pennsylvania, supra, holding that the state court judgment denied Western Union due process of law because it could not protect the company against rival claims of other States. We noted that controversies among different States over their right to escheat intangibles could be settled only in a forum 'where all the States that want to do so can present their claims for consideration and final authoritative determination. Our Court has jurisdiction to do that.' Id., 368 U.S., at 79, 82 S.Ct., at 203.
'We realize that this case could have been resolved otherwise, for the issue here is not controlled by statutory or constitutional provisions or by past decisions, nor is it entirely one of logic. It is fundamentally a question of ease of administration and of equity. We believe that the rule we adopt is the fairest, is easy to apply, and in the long run will be the most generally acceptable to all the States.' Id., at 683, 85 S.Ct., at 631.
In their arguments before the Special Master, the parties suggested three different formulas to resolve their conflicting claims. Pennsylvania contended that Western Union's money order records do not identify anyone as a 'creditor' of the company and in many instances do not list an address for either the sender or payee; therefore, strict application of the Texas v. New Jersey rule to this type of intangible would result in the escheat of almost all the funds to the State of incorporation, here New York. To avoid this result, Pennsylvania proposed that the State where the money order was purchased be permitted to take the funds. It claimed that the State where the money orders are bought should be presumed to be the State of the sender's residence. Connecticut, California, and Indiana supported this proposal, as did New Jersey as amicus curiae.
Florida and Arizona also supported Pennsylvania, but argued that where the payee had received but not cashed the money order, his address, if known, should determine escheat, regardless of the sender's address.
New York argued that Texas v. New Jersey should be strictly applied, but that it was not retroactive. Thus, as to money orders purchased between 1930 and 1958 (seven years before the Texas decision)6 New York asserted its right as the State of incorporation to all unclaimed funds, regardless of the creditor's address.7 As for money orders drawn after 1958, New York would apply the Texas rule, and take the funds in all cases where the creditor's address did not appear or was located in a State not providing for escheat.
'Any sum now held by Western Union unclaimed for the period of time prescribed by the applicable State statutes may be escheated or taken into custody by the State in which the records of Western Union placed the address of the creditor, whether that creditor be the payee of an unpaid draft, the sender of a money order entitled to a refund, or an individual whose claim has been underpaid through error. . . . (I)f no address is contained in the records of Western Union, or if the State in which the address of the creditor falls has no applicable escheat law, then the right to escheat or take custody shall be in the domiciliary State of the debtor, in this case, New York.' Id., at 20—21.
The Report also states that New York would bear the burden of establishing 'as to all escheatable items the absence from Western Union's records of an address for the creditor.' Id., at 16.
Pennsylvania's exceptions argue that where a transaction is of a type that 'the obligor does not make entries upon its books and records showing the address of the obligee,' only 'the State of origin of the transaction' should be permitted to escheat. Florida and Arizona have abandoned their state-of-destination test, and together with the other participating States save New York, have joined in Pennsylvania's exceptions. Tr. of Oral Arg. 20, 42.
Pennsylvania's proposal has some surface appeal. Because Western Union does not regularly record the addresses of its money order creditors, it is likely that the corporate domicile will receive a much larger share of the unclaimed funds here than in the case of other obligations, like bills for services rendered, where such records are kept as a matter of business practice. In a sense, there is some inconsistency between that result and our refusal in Texas to make the debtor's domicile the primary recipient of unclaimed intangibles. Furthermore, the parties say, the Texas rule is nothing more than a legal presumption that the creditor's residence is in the State of his last known address. A presumption based on the place of purchase is equally valid, they argue, and should be applied in order to prevent New York from gaining this windfall.
Assuming, without resolving the doubts expressed by the Special Master, that the Pennsylvania rule provides a constitutional basis for escheat, we do not regard the likelihood of a 'windfall' for New York as a sufficient reason for carving out this exception to the Texas rule. Texas v. New Jersey was not grounded on the assumption that all creditors' addresses are known. Indeed, as to four of the eight classes of debt involved in that case, the Court expressly found that some of the creditors 'had no last address indicated.' 379 U.S., at 675—676, n. 4, 85 S.Ct., at 627—628, 13 L.Ed.2d 596. Thus, the only arguable basis for distinguishing money orders is that they involve a higher percentage of unknown addresses. But we are not told what percentage is high enough to justify an exception to the Texas rule, nor is it entirely clear that money orders constitute the only form of transaction where the percentage of unknown addresses may run high. In other words, to vary the application of the Texas rule according to the adequacy of the debtor's records would require this Court to do precisely what we said should be avoided—that is, 'to decide each escheat case on the basis of its particular facts or to devise new rules of law to apply to ever-developing new categories of facts.' Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U.S., at 679, 85 S.Ct., at 629.
Furthermore, a substantial number of creditors' addresses may in fact be available in this case. Although Western Union has not kept ledger records of addresses, the parties stipulated, and the Special Master found, that money order applications have been retained in the company's records 'as far back as 1930 in some instances and are generally available since 1941.' Report 9. To the extent that creditor addresses are available from those forms, the 'windfall' to New York will, of course, be diminished.
We think that as a matter of fairness the claimant States, and not Western Union, should bear the cost of finding and recording the available addresses, and we shall remand to the Special Master for a hearing and recommendation as to the appropriate formula for distributing those costs. As for future money order transactions, nothing we say here prohibits the States from requiring Western Union to keep adequate address records. The decree recommended by the Special Master is adopted and entered,8 and the cause is remanded to the Special Master for further proceedings and the filing of a proposed supplemental decree with respect to the distribution of costs of the inquiry as to available addresses.
Recommended decree adopted and cause remanded.
Mr. Justice POWELL, with whom Mr. Justice BLACKMUN and Mr. Justice REHNQUIST join, dissenting.
The majority opinion today purports to apply the rule laid down in Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U.S. 674, 85 S.Ct. 626, 13 L.Ed.2d 596 (1965), to a fact situation not contemplated when that case was decided. In applying that rule to these new facts, it seems to me that the Court exalts the rule but derogates the reasons supporting it.
* Texas v. New Jersey, a case decided within the Court's original jurisdiction, is a unique precedent. Disposition of that case necessarily required a departure from the Court's usual mode of decisionmaking. Our role in this country's scheme of government is ordinarily a restricted one, limited in large measure to the resolution of conflicts calling for the interpretation and application either of statutory acts or of provisions of the Federal Constitution. In the performance of this function, an individual Justice's views as to what he might consider 'fair' or 'equitable' or 'expeditious' are largely immaterial. Infrequently, however, we are called on to resolve disputes arising under the original jurisdiction of the Court (Art. III, § 2) in which our judgment is unaided by statutory or constitutional directives.
'(T)he issue here is not controlled by statutory or constitutional provisions or by past decisions, nor is it entirely one of logic. It is fundamentally a question of ease of administration and of equity.' Id., at 683, 85 S.Ct., at 631.
The case before us today requires the application of similar principles, and I agree that Mr. Justice Black's opinion in Texas v. New Jersey points the way to the most desirable result. In my view, however, the majority's application of that precedent to the facts of this case offends both the 'fairness' and 'ease of administration' bases of that opinion.
The Court in Texas v. New Jersey was asked to decide which States could take title to escheatable intangible personal property in the form of debts owed by Sun Oil Co. to a large number of individual creditors. After rejecting several alternatives offered by the parties, the Court adopted the rule proposed by the State of Florida and approved by the Special Master. Under that rule the power to escheat the debts in question, in the first instance, was to be accorded 'to the State of the creditor's last known address as shown by the debtor's books and records.' Id., at 680—681, 85 S.Ct., at 630. In the 'infrequent' case in which no record of last address was available or in which the appropriate State's laws did not provide for the escheat of abandoned intangibles, the property was to go to the State of the debtor's corporate domicile. Id., at 682, 85 S.Ct., at 631.
This disposition recommended itself to the Court for several reasons. The rule was generally consistent with the common-law maxim 'mobilia sequuntur personam'* under which intangible personal property may be found to follow the domicile of its owner—here the creditor. Id., at 680, n. 10, 85 S.Ct., at 630. In looking to the residence of the creditor, the rule adopted by the Court recognized that the Company's unclaimed debts were assets of the individual creditors rather than assets of the debtor. Id., at 681, 85 S.Ct., at 630. Also, in distributing the property among the creditors' States, the rule had the advantage of dividing the property in a manner roughly proportionate to the commercial activities of each State's residents. In using the last-known address as the sole indicator of domicile, the rule would be easy to administer and apply. The Court recognized, of course, that this approach might lead to the escheat of property to a State from which the creditor had removed himself in the period since the debt arose. Yet it concluded that these instances would 'tend to a large extent to cancel each other out,' and would not disrupt the basic fairness and expeditiousness of the result. Id., at 681, 85 S.Ct., at 631.
Paradoxically, the mechanistic application of the Texas v. New Jersey rule to the present case leads ultimately to the defeat of each of the beneficial justifications for that rule. Unlike the records of the numerous debts owed by Sun Oil, Western Union's records may reflect the creditors' addresses for only a relatively small percentage of the transactions. As a consequence, the greater portion of the entire Western Union fund will go to the State of New York—the State of corporate domicile. Effectively then, the obligation of the debtor will be converted into an asset of the debtor's State of domicile to the exclusion of the creditors' States. The Court in Texas v. New Jersey specifically repudiated this result on the ground that it was inconsistent with 'principles of fairness.' Id., at 680, 85 S.Ct., at 630. It would have 'exalt(ed) a minor factor to permit escheat of obligations incurred all over the country by the State in which the debtor happened to incorporate itself.' Ibid. The fact that the Court was willing to permit this result in the few cases in which no record of address was available or in which no law of escheat governed, does not diminish the clear view of the Court that this result would be impermissible as a basis for disposing of more than a small minority of the debts. Yet the decision today ignores the Court's unwillingness to 'exalt' the largely coincidental domicile of the corporate debtor. It also disregards the Court's clearly expressed intent that the escheatable property be distributed in proportions roughly comparable to the volume of transactions conducted in each State.
Furthermore, the rule today is incompatible with the Court's view in Texas v. New Jersey that an easily and inexpensively discernible mode of allocation be utilized. The majority's rule will require the examination of every available money order application to determine whether the applicant filled out the address blank for his own address, or in the case of money order drafts received but not cashed, whether the holder's address had been preserved. Western Union estimated in the stipulated statement of facts that such an item-by-item examination could be undertaken at a cost of approximately $175,000. Report of the Special Master 16.
In sum, the invocation of the Texas v. New Jersey rule in the manner contemplated by the majority will lead to a result that is neither expeditious nor equitable.
The reasons underlying Texas v. New Jersey could best be effectuated by a relatively minor but logical deviation in the manner in which that rule is implemented in this case. Rather than embarking upon a potentially fruitless search for the creditor's last-known address as a rough indicator of domicile, reliance should be placed upon the State where the debtor-creditor relationship was established. In most cases that State is likely also to be the site of the creditor's domicile. In other words, in the case of money orders sent and then returned to the initiating Western Union office because the sendee failed to claim the money, the State in which the money order was purchased may be presumed to be the State of the purchaser-creditor's domicile. And, where the draft has been received by either the initiating party or by the recipient but not negotiated, the State in which the draft was issued may be assumed to be the State of that creditor's domicile.
This modification is preferable, first, because it preserves the equitable foundation of the Texas v. New Jersey rule. The State of the corporate debtor's domicile is denied a 'windfall'; the fund is divided in a proportion approximating the volume of transactions occurring in each State; and the integrity of the notion that these amounts represent assets of the individual purchasers or recipients of money orders is maintained. Secondly, the relevant information would be more easily obtainable. The place of purchase and the office of destination are reflected in Western Union's ledger books and it would, therefore, be unnecessary to examine the innumerable application forms themselves. Since the ledgers are more readily available, the allocation of the fund would be effected at less expense than would be required by the majority's resolution.
Despite these advantages, the Special Master rejected this alternative. He reasoned that an undetermined number of these transactions must have taken place outside the creditors' State of domicile. Specifically, he cited the cases in which a New Jersey or Connecticut resident might purchase a money order in New York, or cases in which a resident of Virginia or Maryland might make his purchase in the District of Columbia. Report of the Special Master 18. While such cases certainly exist, they are merely exceptions to a generally reliable rule that money order purchases are likely to have occurred within the State of the purchaser's domicile. That perfection is not achieved is no reason to reject this alternative. The Texas v. New Jersey Court recognized that absolute fairness was not obtainable and that the most that could be expected was a rule providing a reasonable approximation. Id., at 681 n. 11, 85 S.Ct., at 630, 13 L.Ed.2d 596. Certainly this objection should not be allowed to frustrate the better alternative in favor of one that is less fair and more difficult to administer.
The majority opinion intimates, as I think it must, that the ultimate consequence of its decision today is inconsistent (ante, at 214) with the result in Texas v. New Jersey. While the opinion appears to recognize that New York will reap the very 'windfall' that Texas v. New Jersey sought to avoid, its refusal to bend in the face of this consequence goes largely unexplained. Apparently, the basis for its decision is the conviction that the Court's prior precedent was designed to settle the question of escheat of intangible personal property 'once and for all.' Id., at 678, 85 S.Ct., at 629. The majority adheres to the existing rule because of some apprehension that flexibility in this case will deprive the Court of a satisfactory test for the resolution of future cases. The opinion anticipates that departure from Texas v. New Jersey will leave other cases to be decided on an ad hoc basis, depending in each case on the 'adequacy of the debtor's records.' Ante, at 215. Although the factual circumstances of future cases cannot be predicted, it is likely that most of such cases can be resolved within the principles of Texas v. New Jersey. The factual range is limited. The debtor either will or will not maintain creditors' addresses in the ordinary course of business. In some categories of transactions, such as those involving money orders and traveler's checks, adequate address records may not be available. In the case of ordinary corporate debts, however, it is more likely that records will be available. Moreover, as the majority points out, any State is free to require corporations doing business in that State to maintain records of their creditors' addresses. Ante, at 215.
In short, the threat of frequent and complicated cases in this area seems remote. It provides little justification for the majority's Cinderella-like compulsion to accommodate this ill-fitting precedential "slipper." From a result that seems both inflexible and inequitable, I dissent.
Of the remaining States party to this case, Florida has filed exceptions as defendant, and Connecticut and Indiana as intervening plaintiffs. New Jersey has filed a brief amicus curiae in support of Pennsylvania's position.
We granted leave to file the bill of complaint, 398 U.S. 956, 90 S.Ct. 2161, 26 L.Ed.2d 540, permitted the State of Connecticut to intervene as a party plaintiff, and appointed Mr. John F. Davis as a Special Master to take evidence and make appropriate reports. 400 U.S. 811, 91 S.Ct. 30, 27 L.Ed.2d 39. Thereafter, California and Indiana were permitted to intervene as plaintiffs, and Arizona as a defendant. 400 U.S. 924, 91 S.Ct. 182, 27 L.Ed.2d 183; 400 U.S. 1019, 91 S.Ct. 579, 27 L.Ed.2d 631; 401 U.S. 931, 91 S.Ct. 914, 28 L.Ed.2d 211.
'(b) Whensoever the . . . person entitled to any . . . personal property within or subject to the control of the Commonwealth or the whereabouts of such . . . person entitled has been or shall be and remain unknown for the period of seven successive years, such . . . personal property . . . shall escheat to the Commonwealth . . ..
The Court has taken no action on the plea for temporary injunction, and accepts the recommendation of the Special Master that it now 'be denied as unnecessary.' Report 3 n. 2.
New York makes no claim with respect to money orders issued before 1930.
Insofar as the invocation of any provision of the Revised Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act would be inconsistent with this decree, the decree prevails. See North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann, 402 U.S. 43, 45—46, 91 S.Ct. 1284, 1285—1286, 28 L.Ed.2d 586 (1971).
See Blodgett v. Silberman, 277 U.S. 1, 9—10, 48 S.Ct. 410, 413—414, 72 L.Ed. 749 (1928).

matches:
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
§ 2
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.