Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Did you mean choice or conflict and law?

Your query (choice or conflict) and law returned 17263 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

	OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal from an order of the District Court vacating an arbitrator's award. Kayser exercised his contractual right to demand arbitration and was awarded substantial damages. We will affir m. Both of which are currently the subject of circuit splits. The first question is whether contracting parties may opt out of the FAA's default vacatur standards and fashion their own. Because the LCOA is a
	OPINION/ORDER Three issues are presented for decision following the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the excess insurer. Did the District Court err in holding that New York law governs this dispute as the state in which the insurance 3 contract was issued and delivered. We conclude that although Pennsylvania's choice of law rules have abandoned the lex loci doctrine. Was unloading bags at the Pittsburgh International Airport. He was severely injured and is now a quadriplegic requiring constant round the clock care. Which was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dyson KissnerMoran Corporation (
	OPINION/ORDER Is whether Indiana's or Pennsylvania's choice of law rules govern a suit against the United States by the estates of passengers killed in the crash of a small private aircraft. The plane was hangared in Pennsylvania. The corporation that owned it was incorporated in Pennsylvania. D.C. of a chart incorrectly showing that a long inactive instrument landing approach at the airport was active. The District Court determined that because acts of negligence were committed in both Indiana and the District of Columbia (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Joseph W. Are hereby amended. The amended opinion and amended dissent are filed concurrently herewith. The opinion and dissent are amended as follows: 1. Justice Scalia further held that
	OPINION/ORDER NY 10019 Counsel for Appellants *This case was argued before the panel of Judges Roth. Cicuit Judge: This case presents the ironic scenario of class action plaintiffs' attorneys who are being sued for breach of fiduciary duty and related counts by a putative class that the attorneys themselves formed for asbestos personal injury litigation. We will vacate the District Court's grant of summary judgment to defendant attorneys and its denial of class certification. Was commenced in 1995. Several thousand asbestos personal injury plaintiffs were joined in Cosey. A trial was conducted in Cosey for the cases of twelve plaintiffs with malignant asbestos related diseases. Those twelve Cosey plaintiffs were awarded approximately $48.5 million in damages. The sole attorneys of record for all the Cosey plaintiffs were Robert A. At the time the Cosey verdict was delivered. There were more than 2. Before any settlements were reached. 1 in which the Plaintiffs in this suit were joined. Rankin was removed to the federal District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi as Rankin v.
	OPINION/ORDER Inc. (
	97-5216 -- BOYD ROSENE AND ASSOCIATES INC. V. KANSAS MUNICIPAL GAS AGENCY -- 04/13/1999 936 was inappropriate. The district court's award of attorney's fees is Reversed.
	OPINION/ORDER Esquire (Argued) Margolis Edelstein 216 Haddon Avenue This case was submitted to the panel of Judges Roth. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C.§46(d). *Judge Roth assumed senior status on May 31. Is governed by New Jersey or Pennsylvania law. We will affirm the District Court's application of New Jersey law and will remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Carson was driving his vehicle on Route 30. Carson was accompanied by his fiancee. Carson was killed and Golonka sustained serious injuries. 4 Jean L. Lebegern is Carson's mother and the personal representative of his estate. Forman is a licensed New Jersey car dealer alleged to have been the owner of the vehicle operated by Cracker. Who was purportedly acting at the behest of Albert and/or Good Times Cycles. All of the defendants were residents of New Jersey at the time of the accident. Count II of Lebegern's Amended Complaint is a claim under the Pennsylvania Survival Act. Finding that New Jersey law does apply.1 The reason for the dispute over choice of law is that the New Jersey Survival Act allows recovery only for the decedent's pain and suffering.
	OPINION/ORDER The Dealers are CLM Equipment Company. Are Volvo Construction Equipment North America. Champion Road Machinery Limited (
	OPINION/ORDER The Clerk of Court is instructed to alter the official caption to conform to that appearing here. 1 SCOTT E. Circuit Judge: BACKGROUND This is a contract dispute in diversity between a Thai company and a Delaware corporation. Was once the largest financial company in Thailand. Is part of the Lehman Brothers family of companies. Is used as Lehman Brothers' global vehicle for derivatives transactions.
	OPINION/ORDER The appellants (collectively
	OPINION/ORDER Two significant constitutional questions are presented for our review. The first is whether the government's use of acquitted codefendant Mercedes Travis. Who Voigt alleges was counsel to the Trust and to him personally. The second is whether the district court violated Voigt's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice when. We must decide whether those statutes require formal
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Joseph W. Plumlee claims that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by the trial judge's denial of Plumlee's pre trial motion to substitute counsel on the basis of an irreconcilable conflict that precluded Plumlee's counsel from acting in the role of an advocate. DEL PAPA reasonably and in good faith believed that members of the Washoe County Public Defender's Office were leaking information about his case to another suspect in the case and to the District Attorney. The resulting distrust that arose between Plumlee and his appointed attorney was such that the attorney himself likened his representation of Plumlee to no representation at all. Plumlee was charged in Nevada state court with the armed robbery and murder of Wilbur Richard Beard. Chief Deputy Public Defender Shelly O'Neill was a good friend of John Dewey. Who was both Plumlee's roommate prior to his arrest and a suspect for the murder. Who was the head trial attorney in the Public Defender's Office. Plumlee also suspected that Allison was leaking information to the District Attorney's Office.
	OPINION/ORDER This appeal involves an interpleader action filed by a pension plan seeking a declaration of which of two claimants is decedent. Finding that Rita is Douglas Durden's
	OPINION/ORDER That McFarland received an evidentiary hearing to which she was not entitled. McFarland was charged in Michigan state court with eleven counts of possession or possession with intent to deliver various drugs. Some of the pills were found in a closet in the southeast bedroom. Yukins No. 01 1360 prescription paraphernalia were found in a file cabinet in the room. Some pills and packets of powder were found in a safe in the room. A sifter that was of the type used in the cocaine trade and that had residue on it. There were four people who could have been linked to the drugs found in the southeast bedroom. The only person who was actually in the house at the time of the search was a man. A man was described in the affidavit supporting the search warrant as
	OPINION/ORDER Are the Contacts Such That Application of American Law Would Be Reasonable? 41 a. Was seriously injured when she was sucked into the propellers of a scuba diving vessel. Plaintiff was a member of the crew of the vessel. Which was in St. We first find American maritime law potentially applicable in this case because the plaintiff is an American citizen. We consider whether applying American law is reasonable under the circumstances. Lucia might have in this case are undefined and. By this we do not mean that the vessel involved here was unlike those in traditional. The activity here was non traditional. Which as we explain is an important consideration in non shipping contexts. One of the defendants is a corporation organized under the laws of St. Was registered in St. Are so threatened or so strong that America’s interests must be ignored. The significance of plaintiff’s American allegiance is an especially important factor. The relevance of the plaintiff’s having entered into her employment contract in the United States is also enhanced.
	FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Freund v. The State did not have a strong case against the petitioner: all physical evidence pointed to the co defendant. The only testimony directly identifying the petitioner as the murderer was that of a witness with serious credibility problems. Information that could have been used against him in a blameshifting defense for the petitioner. Would have made such disclosure unethical.<p> Compounding this conflict were allegations by the opposing defendant in open court that his relationship with the law firm ran deeper than that of attorney and client. If the law firm chose to present a defense of the petitioner that was antagonistic to their former client. The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. Is now serving a life sentence. The other defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and is now a free man.<p> More disturbing to this court than the unethical behavior of the lawyers who represented the petitioner is the fact that this case has made its way to our docket. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="836"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/93-5317.man.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Freund v. The State did not have a strong case against the petitioner: all physical evidence pointed to the co defendant. The only testimony directly identifying the petitioner as the murderer was that of a witness with serious credibility problems. Information that could have been used against him in a blameshifting defense for the petitioner. Would have made such disclosure unethical.<p> Compounding this conflict were allegations by the opposing defendant in open court that his relationship with the law firm ran deeper than that of attorney and client. If the law firm chose to present a defense of the petitioner that was antagonistic to their former client. The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. Is now serving a life sentence. The other defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and is now a free man.<p> More disturbing to this court than the unethical behavior of the lawyers who represented the petitioner is the fact that this case has made its way to our docket. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="827"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAD9378BD375410588256AC5005BFBB7/$file/0035048.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ticknor was granted a non exclusive license to use the Econo Lodge mark in connection with the motel. Choice was to integrate the motel into its national advertising and reservations system and provide other assistance. Which was a pre printed standard form instrument drafted by Choice. Including any claim that this Agreement or any part of this Agreement is invalid. Will be sent to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator will apply the substantive laws of Maryland. Any arbitration will be conducted at our headquarters office in Maryland. The Franchise Agreement also contained a choice of law provision that stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="827"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4F14E7F004AB341A88256E5A00707CC2/$file/0035048.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ticknor was granted a non exclusive license to use the Econo Lodge mark in connection with the motel. Choice was to integrate the motel into its national advertising and reservations system and provide other assistance. Which was a pre printed standard form instrument drafted by Choice. Including any claim that this Agreement or any part of this Agreement is invalid. Will be sent to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator will apply the substantive laws of Maryland. Any arbitration will be conducted at our headquarters office in Maryland. The Franchise Agreement also contained a choice of law provision that stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan99/93-5317.ma3.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH (1/22/1999, NO. 93-5317)<BR></A><BR> The crux of Freund's petition was that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyers labored under significant conflicts of interest that stemmed primarily from their prior representation of Freund's non testifying. Among Freund's symptoms were impaired memory. His main occupation was a full time criminal. He often had them use cocaine with him immediately before they did anything else.</P> <P> Trent claimed to have ties with the local police through his work as a confidential informant. Four such persons were at Trent's apartment. On the night of the murder: three testified at Freund's trial and the fourth was the victim.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/93-5317.ma3.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH (1/22/1999, NO. 93-5317)<BR></A><BR> The crux of Freund's petition was that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyers labored under significant conflicts of interest that stemmed primarily from their prior representation of Freund's non testifying. Among Freund's symptoms were impaired memory. His main occupation was a full time criminal. He often had them use cocaine with him immediately before they did anything else.</P> <P> Trent claimed to have ties with the local police through his work as a confidential informant. Four such persons were at Trent's apartment. On the night of the murder: three testified at Freund's trial and the fourth was the victim.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5F428C53F518C12A882570270081FC1E/$file/0335386.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Defendant appellee Legacy is the non profit corporation that owns this hospital. A hospital employee analyzed Laura Fields' Pap smear and concluded that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="816"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/99-15405.man.html">BUCE V. ALLIANZ LIFE INS. CO. (4/10/2001, NO. 99-15405)<BR></A><BR> The denial of benefits was overturned and the plaintiff the widow of the decedent was awarded $150. The insurance carrier also argues that the proper standard of District Court review of the denial of benefits was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="816"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/002520.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was the Auction in this Case Permissibl e? 111 D. INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY These are consolidated appeals from the District Court's approval of a $3.2 billion settlement of a securities fraud class action brought against Cendant Corporation and its auditors. Both the settlement and the fee award are challenged in these appeals. The enormous size of both the settlement and the fee award presages a new generation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="816"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/99-15405.man.html">BUCE V. ALLIANZ LIFE INS. CO. (4/10/2001, NO. 99-15405)<BR></A><BR> The denial of benefits was overturned and the plaintiff the widow of the decedent was awarded $150. The insurance carrier also argues that the proper standard of District Court review of the denial of benefits was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7117a.html">A I TRD FIN INC V. PETRA INTL BNKG CORP<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="805"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/96-2599.man.html">UNITED STATES V. REGISTER (7/29/1999, NO. 96-2599)<BR></A><BR> We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="805"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/96-2599.man.html">UNITED STATES V. REGISTER (7/29/1999, NO. 96-2599)<BR></A><BR> We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041931p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were driving from New York to Michigan in a car Powell had rented from Budget in Michigan (and previously driven to New York). The contrary judgment of the District Court is reversed. Chappell is a New York resident and Powell is a Michigan resident. Inc. was a Delaware corporation that maintained its principal place of business in Illinois. It was acquired by Budget. Which was and remains a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. 4 1 Court granted that motion and entered a final judgment. A true conflict exists </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="801"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/013636.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Classification of its claims in the Belgian proceedings and ordering that these issues be determined exclusively by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code was issued without consideration of all relevant legal principles. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. S 158(a) and we have jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. Have applied an abuse of discretion standard to entry of an anti suit injunction as 3 well. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="800"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053435p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the District of New Jersey granting the defendant's motion for The Honorable Myron H. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the District Court erred in its choice of law analysis. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Was born in 1989 with a physical deformity called talipes equinovarus. This condition was first diagnosed twelve days after Warriner's birth by physician Robert Stanton. DuPont Children's Hospital is owned by The Nemours Foundation. That surgery involved a procedure called The Nemours Foundation is a non profit organization created by philanthropist Alfred I. du Pont in 1936. The Warriners allege the surgery was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962599.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court set aside the jury's verdict against Jubal Register for using a firearm This decision is rendered by a quorum. We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962599.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge.* This decision is rendered by a quorum. We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0002p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Decedent was over eighty years old and became interested in planning his estate so that Spendthrift would continue after his death. Retained exclusive control over the private placement: All sales are subject to the discretion of the Sellers including the right to accept each unit as purchased or none until the entire offering is purchased. INSURING CLAUSE If during the policy period any claim or claims are made against the Insured (as herinafter defined) or any of them for a Wrongful Act (as hereinafter defined) while acting in their individual or collective capacities as Directors or Officers. The Insurer will pay on behalf of the Insureds or any of them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="792"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043589p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One of these subcontractors was 2 Hull. Various logistical and timing issues plagued the manufacture and delivery of the freeze dryers before they were eventually installed at Huadu's facility in China in April 1997. These tests would have held the freeze dryers to even more stringent standards than did the failed start up test. Satisfaction of the performance tests was required by the Huadu Contract. The result was an agreement among Huadu. March 1998 was set as the date by which modifications would be completed and Huadu would grant final acceptance. Several particular provisions of the APA are relevant to our discussion. The first is a list of purchase assets. The second provision at issue is Section 7.8. Which states that: Purchaser will. At the location of the customer) or accept returns of products of the Business shipped by [Hull] on and prior to the Closing Date ... which are defective or which fail to conform to the customer's order in accordance with the following provisions (but [SPI] does not hereby assume any liability to any third party claimant. ...). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1307.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Norman Roy Grutman and Grutman Greene & Humphrey were on brief. Mahoney & Miller were on brief. Vetter & White were on brief. Was a vendor to Sammartino. The gold was made available in daily allotments for SI's manufacture of fine jewelry. A field warehouse was established under the auspices of SLT Warehouse Company (SLT). Putnam was to be paid for the metal as and when the manufacturer sold the jewelry which it made from the gold. Learned that Putnam's carrier was planning to cancel existing coverage. Pateman was the lead underwriter.1 In July 1987. Sammartino notified Putnam that substantial amounts of the vendor's gold were missing. Putnam filed claim under the Lloyd's policy for 1Lloyd's marine policy no. 243440200 was syndicated and. That Pateman was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="782"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1161p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal by defendant/third party plaintiff Commer cial Union Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2495_027.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have invoked § 510 against their employers. They allege that AXA intentionally 2 No. 05 2495 deprived them of benefits by changing the way that insurance salesmen are defined as full time employees of the company. We agree with the district court that the plaintiffs' claim is timebarred. There is little dispute concerning the basic facts. AXA Network LLC and the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States to whom we refer collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="774"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwNjZfY2VydC5wZGY=/03-9066_cert.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We find that this case turns on two questions of New York law that are important. Undecided: 1) whether New Jersey or New York law applies to the question of whether the plaintiff's assignment of claim is valid. (Foundation of the Shareholders' Committee Representing the Former Shareholders of Saybolt International B.V.) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="771"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-5144.man.html">LIPCON V. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON (8/5/1998, NO. 97-5144)<BR></A><BR> We are confronted with the important question of whether the anti waiver provisions of the United States securities laws preclude enforcement of certain choice of law and forum selection clauses ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="771"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-5144.man.html">LIPCON V. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON (8/5/1998, NO. 97-5144)<BR></A><BR> We are confronted with the important question of whether the anti waiver provisions of the United States securities laws preclude enforcement of certain choice of law and forum selection clauses ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/061571P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Doboy argues that the district court erred in applying Minnesota law regarding prejudgment interest and should have applied Wisconsin law pursuant to a choice of law provision in the contract at issue in the lawsuit. BACKGROUND This case arises out of a contract between Doboy and Schwan's by which Doboy was to design. Schwan's would have had to prove that the amount of damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3770.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All of which we will refer to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C740557C88F27A1888256D3A00540B8C/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for cross appellees Jack Lawn. Were on the brief for amici curiae International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Scholars. That Alvarez </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="756"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0137p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff's case was properly removed to the district court. Our second inquiry is whether the federal or state standard for vacating an arbitration award should apply when the parties' agreement contains both an arbitration clause and a general choice of law provision requiring the application of a particular state's law. Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/98-4739.man.html">PIAMBA CORTES V. AM. AIRLINES (6/15/1999, NO. 98-4739)<BR></A><BR> The passengers' claims for damages were not limited by Article 25's liability cap. A domiciliary of Colombia who was returning home after studying in the United States. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033515p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. The EPA concluded remedial action was necessary to protect human health. Was responsible for the lead contamination. Was long 3 since out of business. Alleging it was responsible for Price Battery's CERCLA liability as a successor in interest. Exide is General Battery's successor. The disputed issue is whether General Battery. Was a successor to Price Battery. The relevant aspects of the Price/General transaction are as follows. Price Battery was owned by a single shareholder. A seat on General's board of directors.1 At The only Price Battery asset nominally excluded from the transaction was its real property. When the deed was transferred to General for $1.00. 000 General Battery shares were valued at approximately $1 million and represented 4.537% of General's outstanding equity. William Price Sr.'s resulting stake in General Battery was comparable to that of the company's cofounders. Was required under the agreement to immediately change its name to Price Investment Company and to retain $150. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/98-4739.man.html">PIAMBA CORTES V. AM. AIRLINES (6/15/1999, NO. 98-4739)<BR></A><BR> The passengers' claims for damages were not limited by Article 25's liability cap. A domiciliary of Colombia who was returning home after studying in the United States. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981962.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was a secretary at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for a short time in 1972. During several public appearances and on a world wide web site Liddy stated that the burglars' objective during the Watergate break in was to determine whether the Democrats possessed information embarrassing to John Dean.1 More specifically. Liddy asserted that the burglars were seeking a compromising photograph of Dean's fiance that was located in Wells's desk among several photographs that were used to offer prostitution services to outof town guests. The district court determined that Wells was an involuntary public figure who could not prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Because we determine that Wells is not a public figure for purposes of the ongoing public debate regarding Watergate and we also conclude that Louisiana law does not apply to two of Wells's defamation counts. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 John Dean was legal counsel to President Richard M. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1615.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. were on brief. Souls & Woodbine was on brief. Circuit Judge. as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1276.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fisher & Boylan were on brief for appellant. Fortenbaugh & Young were on brief for appellee. Is obligated to indemnify it for environmental cleanup costs related to land and water contamination allegedly caused by Peterson/Puritan. Factual Background The ultimate issue in this case is whether Northbrook is obligated to indemnify CPC for environmental cleanup costs related to land and water contamination caused by Peterson/Puritan. CPC is a multinational packaging and manufacturing corporation headquartered in New Jersey. Its manufacturing facility is located in the town of Cumberland. The wells were closed later that year. That suit was settled in 1984 for $780. The settlement was paid by Northwestern National Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/034830D526D0BEA888256D5D007C9E5F/$file/0235150.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Provided simply that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/961481P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The facts are not in dispute. Which was organized and existed under Illinois state law. The FDIC was subsequently appointed receiver of Cuba Bank and Nordbrock's 1984 promissory note was among the assets purchased by the FDIC as receiver. The 2 court held that the FDIC's action was not time barred and that there were no genuine issues of material fact concerning Nordbrock's liability on the promissory note. Shows there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2BB9BB2F7E1B07E88256E5A00707D05/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was arrested a few days later. Counsel shall escape sanctions for this glaring omission only because this court does not have the time to pursue them. 14365 offense in an especially heinous. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penatly Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F416371F2333CA0E88256AE2007CDC6C/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was arrested a few days later. Counsel shall escape sanctions for this glaring omission only because this court does not have the time to pursue them. 14365 offense in an especially heinous. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penatly Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="736"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2244.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Spelling of last name of appellant's counsel should be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062915p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether the Debtors Are Entitled to Documents Generated in the Course of a BCE/Teleglobe Joint Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 1. Whether BCE's Concession in the Bankruptcy Court Prevents it from Arguing that the Debtors are not Entitled to the Disputed Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5 V. Circuit Judge This is a twist on a classic corporate divorce story. They are attracted to each other and after a brief courtship. Company B is steeped in debt. The wrinkle is that they were produced by and in communication with attorneys who represented the entire corporate family back when they all got along. Is whether Company A may assert the Righteous Brothers. The debtors ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="732"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1376.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Freedom was recapitalized. Hoiles subsequently filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that Alioto was not entitled to a contingent fee based on the selling price of the stock. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado determined Colorado law governed all issues in the case and that the Fee Agreement was unenforceable under Colorado law. We remand with instructions for the district court to determine whether the Fee Agreement is enforceable under California law. Freedom was a closely held media conglomerate owning various newspapers. The remaining shares were owned by other descendants of Hoiles' grandfather. Hoiles believed mismanagement of the company and family shareholder disputes were damaging the value of Freedom's stock. Were unwilling to pay what Hoiles considered a fair price and outside buyers were reluctant to purchase a minority interest in a family owned company. <hr> At Hoiles' direction. Alioto claims Hoiles wanted him to take any action that was necessary. It provided Alioto was to receive </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="731"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11B3FB5896C972DF88256E5A00707B10/$file/9916010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Terhune is substituted for his predecessor. Is amended. The Clerk is ordered to file the attached amended opinion. Judges Graber and Paez have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. 5377 OPINION PAEZ. This guarantee is so important that. Lockhart's appointed counsel was also representing another man who was implicated in that earlier homicide. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Lockhart's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. I Lockhart was convicted in the California Superior Court for murder and attempted murder in the May 31. Lane was killed. Lockhart was also implicated in. That the same guns were used in both the May 7 and May 31 incidents. The expert determined that the seized weapons were the ones used in both shootings. An anonymous female caller informed the Oakland Police Department that two of the shooters who </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="731"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9F81CFC64DC0417C88256A3B005ADD5B/$file/9916010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Terhune is substituted for his predecessor. Is amended. The Clerk is ordered to file the attached amended opinion. Judges Graber and Paez have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. 5377 OPINION PAEZ. This guarantee is so important that. Lockhart's appointed counsel was also representing another man who was implicated in that earlier homicide. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Lockhart's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. I Lockhart was convicted in the California Superior Court for murder and attempted murder in the May 31. Lane was killed. Lockhart was also implicated in. That the same guns were used in both the May 7 and May 31 incidents. The expert determined that the seized weapons were the ones used in both shootings. An anonymous female caller informed the Oakland Police Department that two of the shooters who </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/16E425878603DDBF88256E5A00707A91/$file/9916010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Terhune is substituted for his predecessor. This guarantee is so important that. Lockhart's appointed counsel was also representing another man who was implicated in that earlier homicide. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Lockhart's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. I Lockhart was convicted in the California Superior Court for murder and attempted murder in the May 31. Lane was killed. Lockhart was also implicated in. Cooper is not necessary to our resolution of Lockhart's Sixth Amendment claim. The district court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error. The state court's determination of the facts is presumed to be correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). 3188 A criminalist at the Oakland (California) Police Department had concluded. That the same guns were used in both the May 7 and May 31 incidents. The expert determined that the seized weapons were the ones used in both shootings. An anonymous female caller informed the Oakland Police Department that two of the shooters who </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B45ABC6F6ACD7B8388256A0F005DDC2D/$file/9916010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Terhune is substituted for his predecessor. This guarantee is so important that. Lockhart's appointed counsel was also representing another man who was implicated in that earlier homicide. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Lockhart's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. I Lockhart was convicted in the California Superior Court for murder and attempted murder in the May 31. Lane was killed. Lockhart was also implicated in. Cooper is not necessary to our resolution of Lockhart's Sixth Amendment claim. The district court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error. The state court's determination of the facts is presumed to be correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). 3188 A criminalist at the Oakland (California) Police Department had concluded. That the same guns were used in both the May 7 and May 31 incidents. The expert determined that the seized weapons were the ones used in both shootings. An anonymous female caller informed the Oakland Police Department that two of the shooters who </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="723"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1598.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PC was on brief for appellant. Sutton and Melick & Porter were on brief for appellee Marshal and Stevens. Including a requirement that Morris have the property appraised. Tidemark is a Virginia savings institution with its principle place of business in Newport News. Marshall 1 Newport News Savings Bank was the plaintiff during the proceedings in district court. Was substituted for Newport News Savings Bank. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1957p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to answer as a controlling question of law whether the law of the forum New Jersey applies to liability insurance policies covering environmental damage claims arising out of numerous sites in many states. That law differs from that of the state where the waste site is located. Then the law of the waste site will apply. This is the second of two declaratory judgment actions brought to establish the extent of insurance coverage for a number of claims against NL Industries arising out of its nationwide lead processing activities. These actions were brought in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under diversity jurisdiction. NL was incorporated in New Jersey until recently and still has some industrial plants there. Its national headquarters and principal place of business are located in New York. The insurance contracts were negotiated and executed by NL with a New York broker. One of the carriers has informed us that the numbers have increased to 202 sites in 34 states. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="721"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/88AB5EEB8875CF3888256B21007B0998/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="721"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE94C00688637A7688256E5A00707D8C/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="721"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E76AF88175CB3E0188256A6C00580FDC/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="721"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9DC5BB5DB5573A7988256E5A00707B9A/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="719"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A1BC4AC7A3CC2CE58825728900823407/$file/0455838.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are asked to determine whether and if so. Under what circumstances a criminal defendant's retirement benefits are available as a source of funds to compensate crime victims. Underlying each statute is a weighty policy determination: MVRA rests on the recognition that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972319.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine whether an attorney who provided no defense at the guilt or penalty phase was ineffective in defending a young drug dealer. Who was an alcohol and drug abuser. When relief was denied in district court. We VACATE the denial of habeas relief as to the death sentence and REMAND to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine if petitioner is entitled to habeas relief because of ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase. Who was unemployed but a drug dealer and For factual completeness to address the issues on appeal in our independent review. We include facts from affidavits and expert reports that were exhibits at the 3.850 proceeding but were not part of the record before the district court. It was evident that we needed to review them. The exhibits were filed as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001971.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who were tenants in outlet shopping malls. The tenant assigned to AFS exclusive control of all potential legal claims that the tenant might have against the landlord. The district court concluded that the contractual arrangements were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/062641P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plasser moved the Nebraska district court to dismiss the case because Eggleton's claims were untimely under Nebraska law. Eggleton's claims were timely under Virginia law. I. BACKGROUND David Eggleton is and was during all times relevant to this appeal a citizen and resident of Virginia. He was employed by the Plasser American Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU3ODMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5783-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (ii) all parties were performing under implied in fact contracts. (iii) those implied in fact contracts were illegal under § 2807 c. (iv) all parties were equally at fault for non compliance with § 2807 c. The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment on the ground that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4256.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether a certain appraisal constituted an arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613548.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) whether the 30month concurrent prison sentences Campbell received were unreasonable. It is difficult to overemphasize the breadth and depth of the corruption underlying the case against Campbell. Five high level officials in his former administration and five businessmen were ensnared in the government's investigation of Campbell and either pled guilty or were convicted of charges similar to those Campbell faced. Campbell contends that a court's interest in maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system is insufficient in general and was not sufficiently at risk in this case to justify disqualifying Gillen when (1) Gillen had not represented Greene. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214469op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs filed this class action on behalf of all Florida citizens who have been convicted of a felony and have completed all terms of their incarceration. Parole but who are barred from voting under the state's felon disenfranchisement law.2 The defendants are members of Florida's Clemency Board.3 II. A felon who has completed his sentence may apply for clemency to have his civil rights restored. The requirement of a hearing is insufficient to support the plaintiffs' claim. We say nothing about whether conditioning an application for clemency on paying restitution would be an invalid poll tax. 2 Approximately seventy percent of the plaintiffs class is white. The Clemency Board is made up of the Governor of Florida and members of the Cabinet. Summary judgment is appropriate when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="706"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3150F2CB96356DB088256E5A00707CEF/$file/9935913.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY DPA is a Washington based general partnership. SIADS is a subsidiary of Smiths Industries. SP&A was compensated with a $50. The 1974 Agreement was modified by another agreement that provided for a similar representation arrangement. The 1980 Agreement was negotiated by Michael Pietromonaco ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="706"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/60F75E598B71606D88256AD40078B022/$file/9935913.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY DPA is a Washington based general partnership. SIADS is a subsidiary of Smiths Industries. SP&A was compensated with a $50. The 1974 Agreement was modified by another agreement that provided for a similar representation arrangement. The 1980 Agreement was negotiated by Michael Pietromonaco ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/991378.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Admiralty law is considered one of the most complex areas of American law. We are now asked to resolve some of the problems arising from the Supreme Court's holding problems that the Court itself recognized by ruling upon two distinct questions that the Court expressly declined to decide. Ltd. will be defined. Calhoun: Is Yamaha a Cry by the Judiciary for Legislative Action in State Territorial Waters? We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Holding instead that federal maritime law must govern the standards by which Yamaha's liability will be evaluated. Natalie died when the Yamaha1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053122P.pdf">N:\DOCS\CATHY\05-3122 US V. EDELMANN OPN 7.18.WPD<BR></A><BR> (5) the evidence is insufficient to sustain her convictions on each of the five counts. (7) the district court was without authority to amend the judgment to include a missing forfeiture award. Beard's review of the documents made him suspect Edelmann's company did not actually have access to the more than $2. 000 was secured and accessible to Edelmann. A subsequent investigation of the financial statements and tax returns forwarded to Beard by Edelmann revealed that they were not genuine. Edelmann's second mail fraud count was based upon her actions in connection with an application for a home loan. Edelmann was required to bring $102. Edelmann's first wire fraud count was based on actions she took before closing on her house. Edelmann responded to Thomas Richardson's newspaper ad in which Richardson stated that he was interested in purchasing property for cash. She falsely represented to Richardson that she was an attorney and that she would ensure that all documents were legally sufficient. Explaining that because the anticipated return on her overseas investment was delayed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211324.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Keener is a former employee of Convergys Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0875p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated interlocutory cross appeals before us pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1993) present an interesting and important question of maritime law: whether state wrongful death and survival statutes are displaced by a federal maritime rule of decision concerning the remedies available for the death of a recreational boater occurring within state territorial waters. [fn1] which are explicitly excluded from the reach of the Death on the High Seas Act. The remedies at issue are loss of society. Was killed in a boating accident in the waters off Puerto Rico. Fashioned a federal common law rule applicable to cases involving the death of a non seaman in territorial waters under which future earnings and punitive damages are not recoverable but damages for loss of society or support are. Each party sought certification to appeal the portion of the court's ruling that was unfavorable. Our analysis of the Supreme Court's maritime wrongful death jurisprudence reveals that there is no federal substantive policy with which state wrongful death or survival statutes conflict here. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514631.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2446.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the statute on the ground that it is preempted by the Supremacy Clause and violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Which establishes the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051054np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is from a judgment in favor of the defendant in a suit for tortious interference with a contract. The primary issue is the choice of law to be used in resolving the dispute. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. ISTIL is chartered in Delaware. The case is rife with allegations of illegal payments to corporate and government officials in Ukraine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021494A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We now conclude that the government's waiver of sovereign immunity reflected in the Suits in Admiralty Act is subject to an implied exception similar to the discretionary function exception contained within the Federal Tort Claims Act. I. The relevant facts are set out in detail in the panel's opinion. We will only briefly recount them here. The plaintiffs were riding two jet skis on the Ohio River in the vicinity of the Robert C. The plaintiffs were injured when they went over the gates and dropped approximately twenty five feet to the water below. There were several warning signs on the upstream side of the dam. Their evidence indicated that the signs were difficult to see from the river. Alleging that the government had a duty to warn about the dangers of the dam and that the signs in place were inadequate to satisfy this duty. Arguing that it was protected by an implied discretionary function exception to the SIAA's waiver of sovereign immunity. The government also moved for summary judgment on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that it had no duty to warn about the dam and that the warnings it provided were. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2352.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery were on brief for appellant. With whom Luis Edwin Gonz lez Ortiz and O'Neill & Borges were on brief for appellee. SECOMAN was licensed to sell cotton only inside Peru. The joint venture focused on Pima rather than Tanguis cotton because Pima cotton is of higher quality and is generally in greater demand. At the time there was a substantial differential between the price at which Pima cotton could be purchased from cotton producers in Peru and the international market price. Is a subsidiary of the GE Supply Company. Which is in turn a division of the General Electric Company. GE del Caribe is engaged in the sale of General Electric products in the Caribbean. Was the president of GE del Caribe from 1986 to 1993. He was trying to increase his company's sales by penetrating different Latin American markets. Who was the president of Carmel Export Agency. Horizon was informed that there was a seller on the market ready to provide 1. That the seller was willing to pay a commission on the sale. As well as the fact that the international price for Pima cotton was $2.40 per pound. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/00-12207.man.html">REYNOLDS V. CHAPMAN (6/15/2001, NO. 00-12207)<BR></A><BR> The representation that Reynolds received in this post trial period was constitutionally deficient. Shionoski Thomas) were indicted by a DeKalb County. Each of the defendants was individually represented. The prosecutor was unwilling to make the same offer to Reynolds. Reynolds' defense relied heavily on the fact that the evidence against Curtis was stronger than the evidence implicating Reynolds. As both Curtis and Reynolds were convicted of rape. Both defendants were sentenced to concurrent life terms on the rape. Curtis secured separate counsel for his appeal.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/00-12207.man.html">REYNOLDS V. CHAPMAN (6/15/2001, NO. 00-12207)<BR></A><BR> The representation that Reynolds received in this post trial period was constitutionally deficient. Shionoski Thomas) were indicted by a DeKalb County. Each of the defendants was individually represented. The prosecutor was unwilling to make the same offer to Reynolds. Reynolds' defense relied heavily on the fact that the evidence against Curtis was stronger than the evidence implicating Reynolds. As both Curtis and Reynolds were convicted of rape. Both defendants were sentenced to concurrent life terms on the rape. Curtis secured separate counsel for his appeal.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D9D6DB197E87E1F188256F780000E7E9/$file/0335081.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lambert filed a Personal Restraint Petition in the Washington Court of Appeals attacking his plea on the grounds that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel and the plea was not knowingly. Failed to advise him that he should not plead guilty because he would receive the same sentence if he were convicted after a trial. (3) Romero labored under an actual conflict of interest created by his association with an indigent defense firm that was also representing Lambert's co defendant. Lambert also reasserted the allegation that his guilty plea was not knowing. Voluntary and intelligent because he was unaware that the sentence set forth in his plea agreement life in prison without the possibility of parole truly meant that he would never be released. BLODGETT 17319 also concluded that Lambert was entitled to habeas relief on the ground that his plea was not knowing. Voluntary and intelligent because he was unaware of the punishment he would face. Lambert cross appeals the issues on which he was denied relief. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/01-6403.htm">01-6403 -- MOLLETT V. MULLIN -- 11/05/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/981809P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It stated that it was effective through December 31. He testified at trial that among the factors contributing to his decision was A/C's failure to keep its account with Lennox current. The letter noted that A/C's location in Tulsa was not a franchise location authorized under the January 2. Did not inform A/C that its delinquent account was a reason for Lennox's decision to terminate the franchise. 1996 was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-3193.htm">97-3193 -- SBKC SERVICE CORP. V. 1111 PROSPECT PARTNERS, L.P. -- 07/30/1998<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E1839CBC4CB3521588256AD1005BB5F3/$file/9855853.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Regula contends that the Delta Plan should have accorded deference to the opinions of his treating physicians and considered vocational evidence in making its benefits determination. We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for a determination as to whether the Delta Plan may have been acting under a conflict of interest. Thus whether the court should have applied a less deferential standard of review to the Plan's decision to discontinue Regula's benefits. I. The Delta Plan is a non contributory employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/90-3222a.html">USA V. CHILDRESS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5092C5F12159A34188256E5A00707CDA/$file/9855853.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Regula contends that the Delta Plan should have accorded deference to the opinions of his treating physicians and considered vocational evidence in making its benefits determination. We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for a determination as to whether the Delta Plan may have been acting under a conflict of interest. Thus whether the court should have applied a less deferential standard of review to the Plan's decision to discontinue Regula's benefits. I. The Delta Plan is a non contributory employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044332p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Garcia was driving a Dodge truck registered and insured in Pennsylvania. Gladney was driving a Toyota automobile that he had rented earlier that day in Brooklyn. Was liable to him for his injuries. Has joined in the action asserting a claim for loss of consortium but as a matter of convenience we will refer to Garcia as the plaintiff appellee in the singular. As far as we are aware. The claims against all defendants except Plaza and Gladney were dismissed voluntarily. 2 1 partial summary judgment seeking a determination of whether the court should ascertain Plaza's potential liability by application of Pennsylvania's common law or section 388(1) of New York's Vehicle and Traffic Law. The distinction is likely to be critical because under Pennsylvania common law. Which is predicated on traditional agency principles. If Gladney is determined to be liable to Garcia. Ct. 1998).3 As Actually we are assuming in this opinion that Plaza would be liable to Garcia for Gladney's negligence under New York law but not under Pennsylvania law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5212a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were John L. Prabhu were on the brief of amici curiae The Association for Competitive Technology and Computing Technology Industry Association in support of appellant. Burton was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism in support of appellant. Getman was on the brief for amicus curiae Association for Objective Law in support of appellant. With them on the brief were A. Naughton were on the brief for amici curiae America Online. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Lee A. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Carl Lundgren. There are three principal aspects of this appeal. Because the substantive provisions of the order are flawed. Microsoft asserts that the trial judge committed ethical violations by engaging in impermissible ex parte contacts and making inappropriate public comments on the merits of the case while it was pending. The oral arguments before this court we find that some but not all of Microsoft's liability challenges have merit. There are several reasons supporting this conclusion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5212a.html">U.S. V. MICROSOFT<BR></A><BR> Holley argued the causes for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/016411.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 2 the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was argued before the en banc Court on February 27. (2) holding that the establishment of a magnet schools program was an ultra vires. King and Gregory in the affirmative) attorneys' fees for work done on the unitary status issue are denied. Nominal damages and attorneys' fees in that regard are denied. The injunction is vacated. The imposition of sanctions is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed on the finding of unitary status and the imposition of sanctions. The judgment of the district court vacating and dissolving all prior injunctive orders and decrees is affirmed. The Board is to operate the school system without the strictures of these decrees no later than the 2002 2003 school year. Circuit Judge: This case is hopefully the final chapter in the saga of federal court control over the Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTY2NzktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6679-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That defendant appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The action was brought against Crystal. Crystal was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. GlobalNet was in the business of providing on line news and financial information to private investors in Europe and the United States and to on line trading facilities. GlobalNet is a Delaware company that had an office in Boca Raton. Crystal is a commercial insurance broker incorporated. The primary D&O policy was issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh. An excess D&O policy was issued by Lloyd's of London. A second excess D&O policy was issued by Federal Insurance Company. Although Crystal never was a party to the premium financing agreement (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D534390583B882F88256C380004FE18/$file/0056603.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Total Myanmar was appointed Operator of the Gas Production Joint Venture and the Gas Transportation Company. Total Myanmar was responsible. For </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/962761P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Astraea made numerous phone calls to Northwest's offices in Minnesota during this refurbishment contract was executed by the parties in Minnesota. contract was amended by a letter agreement in March 1994. Under which Astraea was to provide routine maintenance for some Northwest aircraft. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 2 After the contracts were executed. There were delays in completing the aircraft. Including defective parts and a leaky fuel line and undetected tail crack on one of the aircraft. statements were included in an article in the Minneapolis newspaper. Copies of the article were faxed to Northwest employees in Texas. A suit is commenced when it is filed. The counterclaims filed in this action are basically identical to the claims asserted by Astraea in its Texas complaint. 3 3 breached the contracts by delivering the planes late and not performing to specifications. The parties Astraea to the breach of contract claims and moved for summary judgment on the counterclaims. settled the remaining claims which were dismissed with prejudice. counterclaims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/99-11241.man.html">HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA V. EMPLOYERS HEALTH INS. CO. (2/2/2001, NO. 99-11241)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/97-6365.ma3.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (7/21/2000, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR> Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-11241.man.html">HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA V. EMPLOYERS HEALTH INS. CO. (2/2/2001, NO. 99-11241)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/97-6365.ma3.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (7/21/2000, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR> Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-1277.htm">02-1277 -- KIDNEIGH V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 10/03/2003<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3791.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. No. 00 3791 Holleman was one of four people charged with the murder of Robin Opfer in 1977. The district court found that Frank was chosen because he was familiar with the case and Holleman had filed a speedy trial motion. Frank was available to represent Holleman because he had been successful in persuading the prosecutor to dismiss the murder charges against Love. Frank had persuaded the prosecutor that Love was elsewhere (in South Bend) at the time that Holleman had said Love was shooting Opfer. Holleman was acquitted of first degree murder but he was convicted of felony murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. This outcome suggests that the jury was not persuaded by the efforts of the state to picture Holleman as the shooter instead of Love (whom Holleman had fingered as the shooter). That petition was denied. Jeffery Evans was assigned to be Holleman's new appellate counsel. 446 U.S. at 350 (holding that an actual conflict of interest that adversely affects defense counsel's performance is a violation of the Sixth Amendment). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021855.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CHEWL'S HOSPITALITY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Chewl argues that the arbitration award should be set aside because (1) the arbitration clause is unconscionable. (2) the contractual liquidated damages clause in the underlying contract is an unenforceable penalty. Chewl was entitled to operate a hotel using Choice Hotels' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/99-6083.htm">99-6083 -- HALE V. GIBSON -- 09/25/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BF653EABAE9A542488256DB0007A1FE1/$file/0057222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Donald Scott Lagatree was refused employment as a legal secretary by Luce. Both cases are closely on point.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1066.html">FESTO CORP V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Gerald T. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Charles L. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>James B. With him on the brief was <u>Louis T. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Joseph R. Of counsel on the brief were <u>John G. Also of counsel on the brief were <u>Rory J. With him on the brief were <u>Kendrew H. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Perry M. Also on the brief was <u>Mark J. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Frederick T. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>J. Of counsel on the brief was <u>James W. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1580.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An Order was entered on behalf of this panel denying Northbrook's petition for rehearing. Northbrook's first contention is that the panel opinion ignored </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/97-5931.man.html">MAZZONI FARMS V. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.(2/4/1999, NO. 97-5931)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> Plaintiffs Mazzoni Farms and Jack Martin are commercial nurseries whose plants were allegedly damaged by a Dupont product called Benlate. Or may hereafter have against Defendant. Existing or occurring at any time up to and including the date this Release is signed (including. Which might have required them to tender back the settlement proceeds. 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941).</P> <P> Dupont argues that Delaware law controls because plaintiffs have not specifically alleged that Dupont fraudulently procured the choice of law provisions themselves. Plaintiffs' response is that their general allegation of fraudulent inducement renders void the choice of law provisions. Undue influence and mistake upon a contract is determined by the law selected by application of the rules of §§ 187 188. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/97-5931.man.html">MAZZONI FARMS V. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.(2/4/1999, NO. 97-5931)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> Plaintiffs Mazzoni Farms and Jack Martin are commercial nurseries whose plants were allegedly damaged by a Dupont product called Benlate. Or may hereafter have against Defendant. Existing or occurring at any time up to and including the date this Release is signed (including. Which might have required them to tender back the settlement proceeds. 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941).</P> <P> Dupont argues that Delaware law controls because plaintiffs have not specifically alleged that Dupont fraudulently procured the choice of law provisions themselves. Plaintiffs' response is that their general allegation of fraudulent inducement renders void the choice of law provisions. Undue influence and mistake upon a contract is determined by the law selected by application of the rules of §§ 187 188. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/921500E7C5A64E0A882571C30048F0C9/$file/0256256.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991055.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nottoway County contends that its decision to deny the permit was indeed supported by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/20ADC1B137F0613D882571EF0077D396/$file/0355166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question before us is whether a state's exercise of its sovereign power to control the use of its funds conflicts with national labor policy as expressed in the National Labor Relations Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F31BC7CFC2E61F36882572BA0076FFCD/$file/0256256.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER Rio Tinto's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is granted in part. Are hereby withdrawn. A superseding opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order. Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/06/041465P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND HMOP is a health maintenance organization ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/039A92FE7F60F910882571C6007C031D/$file/0399001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr. is substituted for his predecessor Jeanne Woodford. Because Hovey admitted that he had taken the young victim against her will and committed the acts that resulted in her death. Finding a number of errors but determining that none is alone or cumulatively sufficient to merit reversal of Hovey's conviction. Eight year old Tina Salazar was abducted while she was walking home from school in Hayward. Later that afternoon she was found by the side of a road. Hovey was arrested in connection with the kidnapping of another young girl. Hovey was arrested for the Salazar kidnapping and murder. Hovey was charged with kidnapping and with first degree murder with two </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/500D5B2B3F1087E0882571F7004E47F0/$file/0456105.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. Was surrendered HUYNH v. Among those banks were the three banks party to the instant appeal: Citibank. Claiming that the action was timebarred by the New York statute of limitations governing claims arising from contract and fraud. No other evidence of foreign law was offered before the district court. We must determine whether </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/991346P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 1 This is a federal admiralty case involving an underlying Jones Act personal injury action brought in Illinois state court by James F. Lewis & Clark argues that the district court abused its discretion in dissolving its restraining order and staying the federal admiralty action because (1) the federal district court has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate Lewis & Clark's right to exoneration from or limitation of liability and (2) Claimant's Illinois state court action was properly enjoined under the circumstances of the present case. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Jurisdiction in the court of appeals is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background Lewis & Clark is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Granite City. Lewis & Clark was the owner or. Claimant was purportedly injured while working for Lewis & Clark as a deckhand aboard the M/V KAREN MICHELLE. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6C787AC61C157D8E88257074005A456D/$file/0355166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question presented is whether California Assembly Bill 1889. Is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.1 As we explain. The California statute chills employers from exercising their free speech rights that are explicitly protected by Congress under the National Labor Relations Act. That the use of the state spending power is rarely a defense to state interference with the National Labor Relations Act. 290 91 (1986) (emphasizing that Congress would not have intended to allow states to interfere with the NLRA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3EAFBA3AC5722E98825703F0002ABCC/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brown is substituted for her predecessor. We filed an opinion in this case holding that there is a reasonable probability that as a result of instructional error the jury did not consider constitutionally mitigating evidence at the penalty phase. Payton was a postAEDPA case and was decided under the highly deferential AEDPA standard. While the case before us is pre AEDPA and is determined by the application of the ordinary rules of constitutional interpretation. BROWN habeas corpus only if the state court was objectively unreasonable in its application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Such is not the case when AEDPA does not apply. If anything about AEDPA is clear. It is that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/983380P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was injured in October 1993 when the tractor trailer he was driving through Missouri collided with another vehicle driven by an uninsured resident of Missouri. He is apparently not able to return to his chosen occupation of truck driving. He was employed by Adair Transportation (Adair) which had leased the tractor trailer and Brown's services to Chemical Leaman Corporation (Chemical). Brown was the sole driver assigned to the truck which he drove regularly on interstate trips. When he was home in Tennessee he parked the rig at his house or at Chemical's Memphis depot. The trailer was licensed and registered in Tennessee. The tractor was licensed and registered in Texas. Both policies recognize that the covered vehicles are likely to travel through various states. Policy TKF167115 (policy 115) is referred to by the Browns as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/993085P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is engaged in the retailing and servicing of personal computers. SBC was an unincorporated division of Sears that generally engaged in the same type of business as Inacom. Inacom was not familiar with government contracting. The BAA contained representations from Sears that it was not in material breach or default of its contract with the DOD and that Sears enjoyed a satisfactory relationship with the government with regard to the contract. The DOD informed Inacom that its proposed model was an insufficient replacement for the D500 and D1075 models. Sears argues that the most applicable portion of the Restatement is section 187(1). Which provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1399.html">HUNTER DOUGLAS V. HARMONIC DESIGN<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-2176.htm">02-2176 -- FOUGHT V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 08/13/2004<BR></A><BR> <strong> </strong>Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2314.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cavanagh & Cooney were on brief for defendants. Decof & Grimm were on brief for plaintiff. Arthur LaPlante was rendered quadriplegic from a fall sustained while riding an all terrain vehicle (ATV) designed. This amount was reduced to $8. If Honda is found liable on retrial. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. The course of Arthur LaPlante's life was dramatically and irreversibly altered. This ATV is a three wheeled motorized vehicle intended for off road use. Was the third to ride after Kallhoff and Leib. When plaintiff was unable to negotiate a left hand turn onto a twelve foot wide dirt road. The trial was bifurcated so that the issue of punitive damages could be tried after the issues of liability and compensatory damages. The jury also found that plaintiff was comparatively negligent. Or damage was a subsequent alteration or modification. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2F2EFC35C3CDFF70882571CA007F9587/$file/0355601.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> John Will Ongman. Which was both the administrator and the funding source of the plan. We have returned to first principles. As we will explain below. This case requires us to consider how a court is to review an ERISA plan administrator's decision when the procedure that produced the decision did not follow all statutory requirements. For the reasons that we will develop. The administrator is not. Only life insurance is at issue in this appeal. The life insurance policy under the plan was originally issued by Home Life Financial Assurance Company. Alta is the successor in interest to Home Life's rights and responsibilities. The insured may request what is commonly referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510863.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For providing necessaries to a Greek flagged cruise vessel while the vessel was in a United States port. I. Introduction This case is properly introduced by another opinion of this court. 616.56 worth of existing food and beverage items already onboard the Vessel and in a shore side warehouse in Greece that were owned by OWC and ROC. Who was onboard for part of the voyage. Guglielmo provided food and beverage management services both while the Vessel was in Port Everglades. The Vessel made two cruises from Port Everglades: the first was from November 30. The second was from December 17. The proposed contract included several provisions that were either directly opposite Zernavi's proposals or had not yet been negotiated. Claiming that it was entitled to a maritime lien under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510862.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider whether United States law was properly applied to govern a transaction between a Liberian shipowner and a Greek travel agency for travel services benefitting a Greek flagged cruise vessel while it was in a United States port. We find that Greek lawnot United States lawshould have been applied. Background Aktina is a Greek travel agency. Claiming that it was entitled to a maritime lien under the Commercial 3 Instruments and Maritime Liens Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4081.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The assets were sold at an allegedly depressed price to the defendants for $66. The FDIC is now left struggling to have the courts apply the most lenient statute of limitations in order to keep this case from being removed from court as untimely. We in turn are faced with questions of choice of law principles and statute of limitations application. The district court disagreed and applied federal choice of law rules and determined that under the limitations resulting from those rules the FDIC is barred from bringing this suit. As receiver RTC decided to sell various outstanding loans that were owned by the insolvent lending institution. Among these loans was a group of non performing and sub performing No. 02 4081 3 real estate loans known as the Merit Loans. The debtors on the Merit loans were all entities owned or controlled by Albert Ichelson. Corporations and their affiliates who had previously defaulted on obligations to the RTC or the FDIC were ineligible for bidding. These dealings were in direct violation of RTC requirements that no bidder could communicate with any debtor without RTC consent or enter into business relationships with any debtor. 4 No. 02 4081 With this elaborate scheme in place. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312572.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing this case on grounds of forum non conveniens.2 We find that the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply the strong presumption that a United States citizen will not be ousted from the courts of this country and reverse. Where Sistemas Mecanicos was promoting its products. The contract was 1 Appellants will be referred to collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954520.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Trumpet Vine is a Netherlands Antilles corporation organized by Mexican investors for the purpose of acquiring Del Monte. Trumpet Vine's bid was supported by financing from Nacional Financiera. After the takeover bid was announced. (UCP) seeking adjudication that UCP was not entitled to monetary damages or injunctive relief arising out of the Del Monte Honorable Myron H. Is a private investment corporation formed for the purpose of acquiring or investing in companies. founded and served as president of UCP. Is wholly owned by Polly Peck International P.L.C. Which was serving as Aziz' financial advisor. NAFINSA and Del Monte entered into a On July nondisclosure agreement encompassing the disclosure to NAFINSA of confidential and proprietary information about Del Monte. 1 In the agreement Trumpet Vine and NAFINSA contend that the July 8th meeting was an introductory meeting to merely explore the possibility of joint participation with UCP. UCP was unable to move forward and Trumpet Vine subsequently $500. UCP was not included in the acquisition of Del Monte and received no remuneration as a result of the transaction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1788.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nereyda Garcia and Sherin & Lodgen LLP were on brief. David Chaffin and Hare & Chaffin were on brief. Berry & Howard were on brief. Eaton and Sloane & Walsh were on brief. Other environmental laws have pitted businesses against their insurers in fierce disputes over who will bear these costs. That is the case here. Underlying this lawsuit is the cleanup of five hazardous waste sites. Millipore Corporation was one of the sources of waste at the sites. Was a defendant in several actions alleging violations of federal and state environmental laws. The primary issue here is whether the district court erred in entering summary judgment for the insurers (and then denying reconsideration) on the ground that none of Millipore's CERCLA liability is covered under any of the comprehensive general liability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep13/03-30038-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The underlying facts are not in dispute. Foster Wheeler is a multi national corporation which is principally domiciled in the United States and is engaged in a wide variety of manufacturing and shipping endeavors. Is engaged in the operation of vessels for the carriage of goods for hire. Was loaded aboard the AN NING JIANG at the port of Gijon. While the remainder of the shipment was loaded on the vessel in Tarragona. The equipment was delivered in good order to the ports of Tarragona and Gijon and loaded aboard the AN NING JIANG. Foster Wheeler and IMC were the only parties remaining in this litigation. A third party defendant were dismissed from the suit prior to the district court's entry of final judgment. 3 2 See 46 U.S.C. Section 1304(5) of COGSA provides in relevant part: Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with the transportation of goods in an amount exceeding $500 per package ... unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/Oct1999/983550.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clover was seriously and permanently injured. Clover is now paraplegic and already has incurred more than $1.5 million in medical bills. At that time the Clovers were living with Anderson in Bear Lake. B. The Policy The circumstances leading to the issuance of the policy were as follows. 2 Intrenet and its affiliates offered them physical damage insurance for their leased equipment at group rates lower than those that they could have obtained on their own. This insurance protected the lessee corporations against liability for damage caused by the owner operators and their drivers while they were not performing duties for the corporations. Which were in effect at the time of Clover's accident. The endorsement defined the term insured as follows: Who Is an Insured 1. If you are an individual. Anyone for damages he or she is entitled to rec over because of `bodily injury' sustained by another `insured.'. Marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0887p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Vistek moved for judgment on the pleadings contending that the language of the indemnity provision in the lease agreement was not specific enough to overcome the immunity which Vistek. The court accepted Vistek's argument that the indemnity provision in the lease agreement was not specific enough to overcome Vistek's employer's immunity under the PWCA. We will not grant judgment on the pleadings </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1CB92EF5AD825DA188256CCA0011916F/$file/0215416.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> AT&T appeals on the ground that the application of California's consumer protection laws is preempted by the Federal Communications Act and the Federal Arbitration Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The 1934 Act was intended to address the unique problems inherent in a monopolistic environment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1594.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dunn & Crutcher were on brief for appellants. Dunn & Crutcher were on brief for appellants. Mil limet & Branch were on brief for appellee. limet & Branch were on brief for appellee. Of the Eleventh Circuit. Circuit Judge. tion (Ferro) is a Massachusetts corporation which has its princi pal place of business in New Hampshire. The magnetic fluid rotary seal is a state of the art gadget. Nippon Ferrofluidics Corporation (NFC) was Ferro's Japanese subsidiary. Akira Yamamura is NFC's chief executive officer. Both the nondisclosure provision and the restrictive covenant were to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E67E664DE6DAEE5388256DE4000107D8/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2003 is hereby amended. Because the jury was not instructed that it must consider Belmontes' principal mitigation evidence. Because there is a reasonable probability that the instructional error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on Belmontes. 19 year old Steacy McConnell telephoned her parents and stated that she was afraid because several people. Her skull was cracked. The house was ransacked and her stereo was missing. Belmontes was nineteen at the time. Vasquez were each charged with first degree murder and special circumstances. B. The Guilt Phase Bolanos was the principal witness for the state. Vasquez was on the phone with McConnell. The three were short of cash. Belmontes was sprinkled with blood on his face. Belmontes stated that he had had to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5152.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Title to the Tulsa Property is held by a limited partnership. Whose general partner is 61 MM Corp. The partnership and the corporation are both parties to this dispute and will be referred to collectively as the 61 MM Defendants. The remaining defendant who is a party to this appeal is FPM S.A. d/b/a Finastate Projects Management S.A. A Swiss corporation whose principal place of business is Fribourg. Both of which are Panamanian corporations. Have not been served. (FSM is the successor in interest to Finastate SA. The latter will be referred to as FSM in this opinion.). Who were not parties to the Fiduciary Agreement and who forfeited any objection to venue by not timely raising it. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse and remand for further proceedings regarding the meaning under Swiss law of the forum selection clause and whether dismissal is appropriate under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Yavuz was to have a 20% ownership share in the Tulsa Property. Was the value of the gold and silver that Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/97-1421.htm">97-1421 -- UNITED INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS INC. V. WHARF (HOLDINGS) LIMITED -- 04/28/2000<BR></A><BR> NYNEX devoted its resources to this early phase of the project with the tacit understanding that if Wharf received the award and both Wharf and NYNEX were comfortable with the relationship and the project. NYNEX would have an opportunity to invest in the communications company or possibly garner an operations and maintenance contract for its efforts. <p> Mark Schneider. UIH is based in Denver. UIH representatives made it clear they were not interested in serving as a consultant on the project for a fee. Would commit their resources in exchange for a right to invest in CNCL if Wharf was awarded the license. In response to UIH overtures that it was interested in obtaining a greater ownership interest. A foreign company is not permitted to own more than 10% in the cable operator. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1845B4A48AADBA1D88256D63007AEC0D/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the jury was not instructed that it must consider Belmontes' principal mitigation evidence. Because there is a reasonable probability that the instructional error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on Belmontes. 19 year old Steacy McConnell telephoned her parents and stated that she was afraid because several people. Her skull was cracked. The house was ransacked and her stereo was missing. Belmontes was nineteen at the time. Vasquez were each charged with first degree murder and special circumstances. B. The Guilt Phase Bolanos was the principal witness for the state. Vasquez was on the phone with McConnell. The three were short of cash. Belmontes was sprinkled with blood on his face. Belmontes stated that he had had to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-7106a.html">CSX TRANS INC V. CMERCL UN INS CO<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-3053b.html">USA V. GANTT ANTHONY J.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-2176.htm">02-2176 -- FOUGHT V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 02/06/2004<BR></A><BR> Alleging that she was entitled to disability benefits under the plan. Which was issued by UNUM with an effective date of June 1. Under a provision entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C8599301379A3A2988256AE6005BD8E4/$file/0017330.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The United States appeals the district court's decision to abstain from deciding whether the Nevada State Engineer's 14546 denial of the United States' water permit applications is preempted by federal law. We hold that abstention was improper and remand for adjudication on the merits. Substantial amounts of money and effort have been expended to evaluate Yucca Mountain's suitability and to prepare it for use as a repository in the event that the President and Congress ultimately designate it for that purpose. 1 42 U.S.C. §§ 10101 10270 (1997). 2 Id. at § 10131(b)(1). 3 Id. at § 10132(b)(1)(A). Attest that DOE's uses of the water will include. Are not limited to. Nevada law allows the State Engineer to deny a permit application for only three reasons: (1) there is no unappropriated water at the proposed source. Or (3) the proposed use threatens to prove detrimental to the public interest.5 Because the parties stipulated that sufficient water was available and no one claimed to have conflicting rights. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A8DEA501CD6318F88256E5A00707D09/$file/0017330.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The United States appeals the district court's decision to abstain from deciding whether the Nevada State Engineer's 14546 denial of the United States' water permit applications is preempted by federal law. We hold that abstention was improper and remand for adjudication on the merits. Substantial amounts of money and effort have been expended to evaluate Yucca Mountain's suitability and to prepare it for use as a repository in the event that the President and Congress ultimately designate it for that purpose. 1 42 U.S.C. §§ 10101 10270 (1997). 2 Id. at § 10131(b)(1). 3 Id. at § 10132(b)(1)(A). Attest that DOE's uses of the water will include. Are not limited to. Nevada law allows the State Engineer to deny a permit application for only three reasons: (1) there is no unappropriated water at the proposed source. Or (3) the proposed use threatens to prove detrimental to the public interest.5 Because the parties stipulated that sufficient water was available and no one claimed to have conflicting rights. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/011739.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Panarella does not dispute that the facts alleged in the superseding information are sufficient to charge him with being an accessory after the fact to Loeper's scheme to deprive the public of his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F048CEFCF12625E488256E5A00707D37/$file/0015444.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appeal the district court's decision that Nevada rather than California law should be applied to a claim that usurious interest rates were charged on six loans made by defendants. The district court found that the interest rates were permissible and that there had been no conversion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court on both issues. I Plaintiffs are three California corporations Shannon/Vail Five. The loans were secured by trust deeds for real property located in California. The loans were also personally guaranteed by Dobron. Each note recited that the loan was to be repaid in Nevada. The case was removed to federal district court in the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Was then transferred to the District Court of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Thus the transactions were still not usurious. We need not reach the question of whether this exception applies under California law because we find that Nevada law applies. 15312 court also concluded that California did not have a more significant relationship to the contract than Nevada under the principles stated in § 6(b) of the Restatement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E2C84650DADD0B888256E5A00707A47/$file/9916531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/f048cefcf12625e488256e5a00707d37/$FILE/0015444.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appeal the district court's decision that Nevada rather than California law should be applied to a claim that usurious interest rates were charged on six loans made by defendants. The district court found that the interest rates were permissible and that there had been no conversion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court on both issues. I Plaintiffs are three California corporations Shannon/Vail Five. The loans were secured by trust deeds for real property located in California. The loans were also personally guaranteed by Dobron. Each note recited that the loan was to be repaid in Nevada. The case was removed to federal district court in the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Was then transferred to the District Court of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Thus the transactions were still not usurious. We need not reach the question of whether this exception applies under California law because we find that Nevada law applies. 15312 court also concluded that California did not have a more significant relationship to the contract than Nevada under the principles stated in § 6(b) of the Restatement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/58351E7B6A377AA488256AF7007FDEEA/$file/0015444.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appeal the district court's decision that Nevada rather than California law should be applied to a claim that usurious interest rates were charged on six loans made by defendants. The district court found that the interest rates were permissible and that there had been no conversion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court on both issues. I Plaintiffs are three California corporations Shannon/Vail Five. The loans were secured by trust deeds for real property located in California. The loans were also personally guaranteed by Dobron. Each note recited that the loan was to be repaid in Nevada. The case was removed to federal district court in the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Was then transferred to the District Court of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Thus the transactions were still not usurious. We need not reach the question of whether this exception applies under California law because we find that Nevada law applies. 15312 court also concluded that California did not have a more significant relationship to the contract than Nevada under the principles stated in § 6(b) of the Restatement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/58351e7b6a377aa488256af7007fdeea/$FILE/0015444.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appeal the district court's decision that Nevada rather than California law should be applied to a claim that usurious interest rates were charged on six loans made by defendants. The district court found that the interest rates were permissible and that there had been no conversion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court on both issues. I Plaintiffs are three California corporations Shannon/Vail Five. The loans were secured by trust deeds for real property located in California. The loans were also personally guaranteed by Dobron. Each note recited that the loan was to be repaid in Nevada. The case was removed to federal district court in the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Was then transferred to the District Court of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Thus the transactions were still not usurious. We need not reach the question of whether this exception applies under California law because we find that Nevada law applies. 15312 court also concluded that California did not have a more significant relationship to the contract than Nevada under the principles stated in § 6(b) of the Restatement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6BADD5034DABAACE882569EE0083123F/$file/9916531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D71334F8521B38D882569F1005FA660/$file/9916531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2CE0AED3FB4FBAE388256E5A00707A55/$file/9916531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200201/00-7259b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Michael F. That some of the panels were unacceptable because they were chipped. The misrepresentation claim was dismissed pretrial. Showed that the primary cause of the deterioration of the panels was the introduction of excessive chloride ions when Beer improperly acid etched the panels. The deterioration was exacerbated by Beer's failures to manufacture the panels with sufficient concrete cover over the imbedded steel. To protect the steel from attack by chloride ions where the concrete cover was less than one and a half inches thick. The corrosion of the imbedded steel and the resulting cracking was an ongoing. That Beer was negligent. The jury also found that Tiber and Beer had failed to prove that the YWCA knew or reasonably should have known that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3E0165D76CA50A2988256AC4000479AA/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Alvarez is a medical doctor. DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena Salazar ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200201/00-7259a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Michael F. That some of the panels were unacceptable because they were chipped. The misrepresentation claim was dismissed pretrial. Showed that the primary cause of the deterioration of the panels was the introduction of excessive chloride ions when Beer improperly acid etched the panels. The deterioration was exacerbated by Beer's failures to manufacture the panels with sufficient concrete cover over the imbedded steel. To protect the steel from attack by chloride ions where the concrete cover was less than one and a half inches thick. The corrosion of the imbedded steel and the resulting cracking was an ongoing. That Beer was negligent. The jury also found that Tiber and Beer had failed to prove that the YWCA knew or reasonably should have known that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7259a.html">YWCA V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA<BR></A><BR> Sandza argued the cause for appellees.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7259b.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sandza argued the cause for appellees.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7DCEF53D22C65A5882570AD0050FD8E/$file/0299002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a sixty six year old paraplegic on California's death row. Daniels was convicted of two counts of first degree murder for the shooting deaths of police officers Dennis Doty and Phil Trust. Daniels was sentenced to death on January 31. It is necessary to first review the events surrounding a bank robbery Daniels committed in 1980. Daniels was shot nine times by police officers. Daniels was rendered a paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair. On the same day Daniels was sentenced. Although Daniels's physical distress was somewhat lessened. Roth was disturbed by Daniels's psychological condition and expression of suicidal thoughts. Daniels was released on bond. He was beaten. Daniels was ordered to surrender to custody. A warrant was issued for his arrest. Officers Doty and Trust were sent to arrest Daniels at the residence of James Cornish. They were shown to Daniels's bedroom by his caretaker. Cornish's infant son were in the house at the time. While Ross was assisting Daniels with getting dressed. Doty was lying on the floor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1133.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Weitzel and Ropes & Gray were on brief. I. BACKGROUND If social programs are meant to furnish a safety net. Medicare is a notoriously porous one. A main cause of this porosity is that most outpatient prescription drugs are not covered. Participation in the Program is conditioned on providers offering basic Medicare benefits. The BBA includes the following provisions discussing the Program's preemptive effect: (b) Establishment of other standards . . . (3) Relation to state laws (A) In general The standards established under this subsection shall supersede any State law or regulation (including standards described in subparagraph (B)) with respect to Medicare + Choice plans which are offered by Medicare + Choice organizations under this part to the extent such law or regulation is inconsistent with such standards. (B) Standards specifically superseded State standards relating to the following are superseded under this paragraph: (i) Benefit requirements. (ii) Requirements relating to inclusion or treatment of providers. (iii) Coverage determinations (including related appeals and grievance processes). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/74711B584E4B7E5488256E5A00707CB9/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Alvarez is a medical doctor. DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena Salazar ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/98-5500.man.html">SHAPS V. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. (3/16/2001, NO. 98-5500)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/98-5500.man.html">SHAPS V. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. (3/16/2001, NO. 98-5500)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/02-10151.opn.html">PHARM. RESEARCH V. MEADOWS (9/6/2002, NO. 02-10151)<BR></A><BR> If a drug is not on the preferred list. The pharmacist informs the doctor of the availability of other drugs (usually on the preferred drug list) that allegedly have comparable therapeutic value but are less expensive. Approval of the prescribing doctor's first choice drug is guaranteed in 100 percent of all cases. Approximately 55 percent of all these calls have resulted in a change of the prescription to a drug on the preferred drug list. It is not favored by the pharmaceutical manufacturers that brought this lawsuit.</P> <P> The prior authorization program gives the state of Florida considerable leverage in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. Companies that have agreed to pay a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/02-10151.opn.html">PHARM. RESEARCH V. MEADOWS (9/6/2002, NO. 02-10151)<BR></A><BR> If a drug is not on the preferred list. The pharmacist informs the doctor of the availability of other drugs (usually on the preferred drug list) that allegedly have comparable therapeutic value but are less expensive. Approval of the prescribing doctor's first choice drug is guaranteed in 100 percent of all cases. Approximately 55 percent of all these calls have resulted in a change of the prescription to a drug on the preferred drug list. It is not favored by the pharmaceutical manufacturers that brought this lawsuit.</P> <P> The prior authorization program gives the state of Florida considerable leverage in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. Companies that have agreed to pay a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/995734.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that the claims are not preempted. We will reverse their dismissal and remand this case to the District Court. I. FACTS1 The plaintiffs are shareholders in seven investment companies. The plaintiffs have brought the case as a putative class action. The Funds are closed end investment companies. Which are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and publicly traded on the New Y ork Stock Exchange. All of the Funds are incorporated under the laws of Maryland and have their principal places of business in Plainsboro. The Funds' aim is to provide shareholders with income that is exempt from federal income taxes and to increase retur n to shareholders through the use of leverage. Because the facts of this case are not in dispute. The factual background that follows is taken largely from an earlier District Court opinion in this case. As long as there is a spr ead between the short term rates paid by the Funds to holders of the preferred stock and the longer ter m rates received by the Funds from investments. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/972221P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Arkansas General Assembly's goal in passing the PPA was to ensure </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BA7E556D075EA0488256E5A00707C12/$file/9935936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were not eligible for pension benefits under the NWP plans. I. BACKGROUND NWP is a private corporation formed by a group of physicians to provide medical services to members of the Kaiser Permanente Medicare Care Program (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E0F2B10F1409DEB882570D80079757C/$file/0399005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted for John Stokes as Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin. 16433 16434 EARP v. Is amended by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. The Appellant's petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED and the Appellee's petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. Circuit Judge: Ricky Lee Earp is on death row in San Quentin. All reviewing courts thus far have upheld Earp's conviction and sentence. We affirm the district court's summary judgment order in favor of the Warden because we agree that the state court's resolution denying these claims was neither contrary to. Because the record demonstrates that these were strategic choices. All of these claims were denied on summary judgment. We hold that the state court determination that counsel was not laboring under a conflict of interest was neither contrary to. Earp was living in Palmdale. Earp disappeared and spent the next two days with different sets of friends and family elsewhere in California before ultimately turning himself in to the police in Sacramento after learning that he was being sought in connection with Amanda's death. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2457FDB8B7C15C2688256A9C005962B2/$file/9935936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were not eligible for pension benefits under the NWP plans. I. BACKGROUND NWP is a private corporation formed by a group of physicians to provide medical services to members of the Kaiser Permanente Medicare Care Program (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1514.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Lloyd R. Which held that Medlin is not entitled to recover certain increased costs incurred in performing Contract No. Because we find that Medlin's interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation that gives meaning to all of the Contract provisions. Unless otherwise indicated. 2.2.2 Precast Concrete Precast concrete units shall have a compressive strength of no less than 17 MPa. There is no dispute between the parties that paragraph 2.2 permits the contractor to choose between two materials for fiber void retainers: polystyrene rigid insulation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F5FC54966492D55688256AC600156663/$file/0055363.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that their California state claims were foreclosed because Abercrombie's use of the photograph was protected by the First Amendment. Those claims were also preempted by the federal Copyright Act. That Hawaii law was the proper choice of law for some of these claims. That the Lanham Act claim was precluded by the First Amendment and it was also precluded by the nominative fair use doctrine. That there was insufficient evidence to sustain the negli13169 gence or defamation claims. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Abercrombie is an outfitter catering to young people. The Quarterly is Abercrombie's largest advertising vehicle. The primary purpose of the Quarterly is to build brand awareness and increase sales. Each issue is over 250 pages in length and embraces a theme such as collegiate lifestyle. Approximately one quarter of each issue is devoted to stories. The t shirts were advertised for sale in the Quarterly. Still another article entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/102E2880CDD98F8488256E5A00707CC8/$file/0055363.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that their California state claims were foreclosed because Abercrombie's use of the photograph was protected by the First Amendment. Those claims were also preempted by the federal Copyright Act. That Hawaii law was the proper choice of law for some of these claims. That the Lanham Act claim was precluded by the First Amendment and it was also precluded by the nominative fair use doctrine. That there was insufficient evidence to sustain the negli13169 gence or defamation claims. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Abercrombie is an outfitter catering to young people. The Quarterly is Abercrombie's largest advertising vehicle. The primary purpose of the Quarterly is to build brand awareness and increase sales. Each issue is over 250 pages in length and embraces a theme such as collegiate lifestyle. Approximately one quarter of each issue is devoted to stories. The t shirts were advertised for sale in the Quarterly. Still another article entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july96/94-1514.wpd.html">TRIERWEILER V. CROXTON AND TRENCH HOLDING CORP.<BR></A><BR> C&T offered to have Dublin Osaka Group. When these opinions were provided. Following is a description of each appellee's alleged role. Watt owned equity in the firm and was to receive a share of its profits. That Watt was participating in and overseeing C&T. Or tell Trierweiler that it was necessary to confirm ownership. Brasher wrote that Dublin did in fact have the authority to fulfill its duties under the Unconditional Guaranty and Security Agreement. Other defendants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3395_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was Labor Day. Where Argonaut is located and where the arbitration proceedings were to take place. Where the Underwriters syndicate is based. Argonaut claimed it was not bound by the strict thirtyday deadline because its terminus was a Sunday followed by a legal holiday. It claimed that it was not obligated to name the arbitrator on Sunday or on Monday and that the Tuesday. Notice was a timely nomination of the second arbitrator within the meaning of the treaty. Argonaut sent Underwriters notice that it was withdrawing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-4520.opa.html">TRUMPET VINE INVEST. V. UNION CAPITAL PARTNERS I, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Trumpet Vine Invest. v. Trumpet Vine is a Netherlands Antilles corporation organized by Mexican investors for the purpose of acquiring Del Monte. Trumpet Vine's bid was supported by financing from Nacional Financiera. After the takeover bid was announced. (UCP) seeking adjudication that UCP was not entitled to monetary damages or injunctive relief arising out of the Del Monte acquisition. Is a private investment corporation formed for the purpose of acquiring or investing in companies. Is wholly owned by Polly Peck International P.L.C. Which was serving as Aziz' financial advisor. UCP was unable to move forward and submit a bid by the bidding deadline. UCP was not included in the acquisition of Del Monte and received no remuneration as a result of the transaction.<p> Trumpet Vine and NAFINSA initiated a declaratory judgment action stating they had a bona fide dispute with UCP and seeking an adjudication that UCP was not entitled to monetary damages or injunctive relief arising out of the acquisition of Del Monte. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-4520.opa.html">TRUMPET VINE INVEST. V. UNION CAPITAL PARTNERS I, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Trumpet Vine Invest. v. Trumpet Vine is a Netherlands Antilles corporation organized by Mexican investors for the purpose of acquiring Del Monte. Trumpet Vine's bid was supported by financing from Nacional Financiera. After the takeover bid was announced. (UCP) seeking adjudication that UCP was not entitled to monetary damages or injunctive relief arising out of the Del Monte acquisition. Is a private investment corporation formed for the purpose of acquiring or investing in companies. Is wholly owned by Polly Peck International P.L.C. Which was serving as Aziz' financial advisor. UCP was unable to move forward and submit a bid by the bidding deadline. UCP was not included in the acquisition of Del Monte and received no remuneration as a result of the transaction.<p> Trumpet Vine and NAFINSA initiated a declaratory judgment action stating they had a bona fide dispute with UCP and seeking an adjudication that UCP was not entitled to monetary damages or injunctive relief arising out of the acquisition of Del Monte. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/00-10323.man.html">MCMAHAN V. TOTO (7/10/2001, NO. 00-10323)<BR></A><BR> Several of the limited partners in that suit were dismissed. Because their claims were precluded by release and assignment provisions contained in agreements between them and McMahan. The state court granted summary judgment in favor of the limited partners.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/00-10323.man.html">MCMAHAN V. TOTO (7/10/2001, NO. 00-10323)<BR></A><BR> Several of the limited partners in that suit were dismissed. Because their claims were precluded by release and assignment provisions contained in agreements between them and McMahan. The state court granted summary judgment in favor of the limited partners.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F76D4E1DD8A74857882570760014322B/$file/0399005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted for Jeanne S. Circuit Judge: Ricky Lee Earp is on death row in San Quentin. All reviewing courts thus far have upheld Earp's conviction and sentence. All of these claims were denied on summary judgment. We affirm the district court's summary judgment order in favor of the Warden because we agree that the state court's resolution denying these claims was neither contrary to. Because the record demonstrates that these were strategic choices. We hold that the state court determination that counsel was not laboring under a conflict of interest was neither contrary to. Earp was living in Palmdale. Earp disappeared and spent the next two days with different sets of friends and family elsewhere in California before ultimately turning himself in to the police in Sacramento after learning that he was being sought in connection with Amanda's death. Or seminal fluid was found. The medical examiner determined that Amanda's death was caused either by multiple sharp blows to the top of the head or severe shaking. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/94-5223.html">SELSOR V. KAISER<BR></A><BR> The correct electronic copy is attached. The judge rejected Selsor's constitutional claim of denial of effective assistance of counsel where two public defenders were required by the state trial court to represent the interests of both Selsor and his codefendant Richard Dodson despite timely objections by the attorneys and Selsor that Dodson's and Selsor's interests conflicted. Was robbed. Was shot to death and the other. Was shot and wounded. Selsor and Dodson were arrested for the robbery and shootings. Selsor was charged in state court with robbery with firearms in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1973. Dodson was charged with robbery with firearms. Selsor and Dodson were tried together and were both jointly represented by the same two public defenders from the same office. She was wounded in her right shoulder. Two bullets were left in her neck. That the door to the walk in cooler was closed and that she heard the cooler fan. Morris was the only eyewitness to the crime and her testimony did not implicate Selsor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1723a.html">TIME WARNER ENTRTNMT V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1312p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is such a case. It is a class action that seeks to settle the claims of between 250. 000 individuals who have been exposed to asbestos products against the twenty companies known as the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR).[fn2] Most notably. These </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E2E7FC2D58266F0888256C360052B5D4/$file/0170772.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Each member of the Cavanaugh group claimed to have lost more money on Copper Mountain stock than the other two candidates combined.1 At the case management hearing. Explaining that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/94-3560.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ALRED (6/30/1998, NO. 94-3560)<BR></A><BR> Where it was sold. The principal source for obtaining Mexican marijuana was defendant appellant Irma Alred. Who was Irma Calderon in the mid 1980's when the conspiracy began. After delivering approximately 300 pounds of marijuana to coconspirator Charles Douglas Mixon in Holmes County and remaining there until it was sold. Numerous shipments intercepted through traffic stops by law enforcement agents were destined for her. The marijuana was concealed in an extra propane gas tank on trucks traveling from Texas to Holmes County. Three codefendants went to trial.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/021323P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that their malpractice claim was barred by Illinois' two year statute of limitations. The remaining twenty percent interest was held by the 727 Realty Trust (727 Trust). Appellants Penelope Nicol and Patricia Washburn were joint trustees of the 727 Trust. Appellant Terrence Washburn was the beneficiary of this trust. This action was consolidated with the suit involving the Washburns and the Garlocks. All of the individuals involved in these suits were Illinois residents. The Washburns' motion was denied. Their subsequent appeals were also unsuccessful. Arguing that the Washburns' claim was barred by Illinois' two year statute of limitations. Iowa courts have historically viewed statutes of limitations as procedural. The Iowa Supreme Court recognized that this approach was consistent with the general rules set forth in Restatement section 142 (1971). Which provided as follows: (1) An action will not be maintained if it is barred by the statute of limitations of the forum. Including a provision borrowing the statute of limitations of another state. (2) An action will be maintained if it is not barred by the statute of limitations of the forum. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/94-3560.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ALRED (6/30/1998, NO. 94-3560)<BR></A><BR> Where it was sold. The principal source for obtaining Mexican marijuana was defendant appellant Irma Alred. Who was Irma Calderon in the mid 1980's when the conspiracy began. After delivering approximately 300 pounds of marijuana to coconspirator Charles Douglas Mixon in Holmes County and remaining there until it was sold. Numerous shipments intercepted through traffic stops by law enforcement agents were destined for her. The marijuana was concealed in an extra propane gas tank on trucks traveling from Texas to Holmes County. Three codefendants went to trial.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051837p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Appellant Ferrostaal claims that steel coils belonging to it were damaged in transit from Tunisia to New Jersey. We hold that the District Court correctly analyzed the choice of law question and that the fair opportunity doctrine is inconsistent with COGSA. We will. 000 a day.1 The Sea Phoenix was to be delivered into TST's control on or about November 24 or 25. The shipper was Tunisacier International S.A. The shipment was to be discharged at the Novolog terminal in Philadelphia and consigned to the order of Ferrostaal Inc. The total cost of the shipment was $171. Ferrostaal's German parent The Charter Party is a standard New York Produce Exchange time charter form modified with extensive strikeouts and an additional seventeen pages of terms. The Bills of Lading are clear and concise. No such date was provided. No charter party was named. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0706p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from summary judgment granted by the district court in favor of the defendant. The product at issue here is an anchoring system made by Lucker for the off shore oil drilling industry and called a Lateral Mooring System ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2002/01-11072.opn.html">ESFELD V. COSTA CROCIERE, S.P.A. (4/30/2002, NO. 01-11072)<BR></A><BR> The question on appeal is whether. Appellants are three elderly married couples who were injured in the accident. All three couples are United States citizens. The Appellants were on a Western Pacific cruise that had begun in Singapore and was set to terminate in Hong Kong. The cruise ship upon which they were traveling. Was owned and operated by Costa.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2002/01-11072.opn.html">ESFELD V. COSTA CROCIERE, S.P.A. (4/30/2002, NO. 01-11072)<BR></A><BR> The question on appeal is whether. Appellants are three elderly married couples who were injured in the accident. All three couples are United States citizens. The Appellants were on a Western Pacific cruise that had begun in Singapore and was set to terminate in Hong Kong. The cruise ship upon which they were traveling. Was owned and operated by Costa.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI1NzAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2570-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that enforcement of section 211 a is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. We reverse the grant of summary judgment because we conclude that there are disputed issues of fact. The legislature hereby finds and declares that sound fiscal management requires vigilance to ensure that funds appropriated by the legislature for the purchase of goods and provision of needed services are ultimately expended solely for the purpose for which they were appropriated. The legislature finds and declares that when public funds are appropriated for the purchase of specific goods and/or the provision of needed services. Those funds are instead used to encourage or discourage union organization. The proprietary interests of this state are adversely affected. Which should be utilized solely for the public purpose for which they were appropriated. 2. Or (c) hire employees or pay the salary and other compensation of employees whose principal job duties are to encourage or discourage union organization. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111072.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question on appeal is whether. Appellants are three elderly married couples who were injured in the accident. All three couples are United States citizens. The Appellants were on a Western Pacific Honorable David D. Ct. 817 (1938). 3 cruise that had begun in Singapore and was set to terminate in Hong Kong. The cruise ship upon which they were traveling. Was owned and operated by Costa. Although Costa is an Italian corporation. 2 the Appellants have argued throughout this litigation that all of Costa's marketing. Sales for the United States are done through an office in Miami with over 110 employees. The advertising was successful with respect to them. Arrangements for the trip then were made through a company affiliated with Costa that was located in South Florida. It is as a result of these Miami based sales activities by Costa. Costa was acquired in part by Carnival Corporation. Which is headquartered in Miami. When the cruise ship was docked in the Vietnam port of call. None of these entities were parties to the subsequent federal litigation at issue in this appeal. 5 3 the doctrine of forum non conveniens. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/09/983603P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner claimed that he was entitled to a new trial because he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's conflict of interest. I Petitioner was arrested in 1994 after police discovered a psilocybin mushroomgrowing operation in his home. After a six count indictment was filed against the petitioner. III ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011102.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeking primarily reimbursement of monies paid to Prudential pursuant to a subrogation term in its policy that was issued as an employee benefit plan. Singh's complaint alleged that the subrogation term was illegal under the provisions of the Maryland Health Maintenance Organization Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1020p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are Settlement Classes Cognizable Under Rule 23? 50 E. Are the Rule 23(a) and (b) Findings Required for Settlement Classes? IS THE SETTLEMENT CLASS PROPER HERE? 69 A. Were There Adequate Findings Under Rule 23(a)? 69 B. Could the Class Requisites Have Been Met On The Current Record? 70 1. Is the Settlement Fair. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approving the settlement of a large class action following its certification of a so called settlement class. The class members are purchasers. It was subsequently determined. May have had a design defect in their location of the fuel tank. Many of the class members are individual owners (i.e. While others are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-1385.htm">00-1385 -- PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS SERVICES CORPORATION V. OWENS -- 04/17/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C8F2AEBE9764448588256E300069B8B0/$file/0170724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We write en banc to clarify that the acceptance of a criminal defendant's guilty plea is a judicial act distinct from the acceptance of the plea agreement itself. The conditions under which the plea may be withdrawn are governed exclusively by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 Where a district court accepts a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court's choice to do so here was error. As is commonly the case. Although most changes were intended to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1107p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court based its holding on the Providers' claim that the Pennsylvania statute is preempted by the Hyde Amendment. We conclude that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is owed deference regarding her interpretation of the Hyde Amendment mandates. Because the Secretary has determined that reporting requirements are permissible under the Medicaid Act. Because the second physician certification requirement pursuant to § 3215(c) is contrary to a federal regulation. It is also invalid to the extent that it goes beyond the scope of that regulation. The purpose of the Medicaid program is to help provide medical treatment for low income people. Establishment of a Medicaid program is voluntary on the part of each state. While states are not obligated to participate in the Medicaid program. Each state that chooses to do so is required to develop its own state plan which must be approved by the Secretary. Certain categories of medical care are mandatory. While other categories of care are optional. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113345.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Many growers had filed lawsuits against DuPont contending that Benlate was defective and caused damage to their crops and nurseries. Which is known as the Bush Ranch case. We held that the sanctions imposed were punitive. Plaintiffs' case was consolidated in the district court with multiple similar cases in which plaintiffs accuse DuPont of fraud in previous Benlate settlements. 3 2 and thus criminal in nature. So that the district court's imposition of sanctions in a civil proceeding without the constitutional protections accorded criminal defendants was improper. 99 F.3d at 369. B. Other Settlement Fraud Cases The Plaintiffs were not alone in filing settlement fraud cases. The first Benlate settlement fraud cases to be litigated through judgment and appeal were damages actions brought in the Northern District of Georgia by several of the plaintiffs in the Bush Ranch case. We certified the following two questions to the Supreme Court of Florida: (1) what is the effect of the choice of law clause. (2) what is the construction of the release clauses in any settlement agreements governed by Florida. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0833p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The relevant facts are not disputed. [fn1] was CCC's exclusive distributor in the northeastern United States. ISI was not aggressively marketing in some of the states. (3) the 1984 Agreement was not a franchise as defined by the NJFPA. (4) CCC's actions were not in violation of the NJFPA. The court reasoned that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/954061P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> KPERS filed the basic underlying suit in which recusal is sought in Kansas state court in 1991. These parties were Boatmen's First National Bank of Kansas City. Were probating his mother's estate. Of which Judge Bartlett was a primary beneficiary. Judge Bartlett explained that the estate planning work for him was substantially complete5 and that he was seeking no further legal advice from the firm. Judge Bartlett recused himself from deciding Boatmen's application because he owned stock in Boatmen's parent His disqualification from deciding Shook's and Blackwell's Boatmen's motion to intervene was See Boatmen's First applications stemmed from a concern that his rulings on these applications would affect Boatmen's application. eventually stayed. All that remained was a transfer of some insurance to a new trust. The court informed the parties that his daughter had accepted the offer from Shook and also that his son was probably a member of KPERS because he was the assistant city manager of the City of Hays. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ3MDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4706-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant counterclaimant appellee National Service Industries is not liable for the actions of Serv All Uniform Rental Corp. It has not established that there was a de facto merger. The question before us is whether federal common law for purposes of determining corporate successor liability under CERCLA incorporates state law in this case. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-6090.htm">00-6090 -- BRYAN V. GIBSON -- 12/27/2001<BR></A><BR> The retrospective determination that he was competent to stand trial. After finding that Bryan had previously been convicted of a violent felony and was a continuing threat to society. Bryan is entitled to relief only if he can show that the state court's resolution of his claims was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0126p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was sexually harassed and constructively discharged. The district court held that the arbitration provision is invalid as a matter of Tennessee law because it is an unconscionable contract of adhesion and is insufficiently bilateral. Invalid as a matter of federal law because it did not make clear that Cooper was waiving her right to a jury trial. No. 02 5702 The district court also held that the arbitration provision is unenforceable. I. BACKGROUND Terry Rogers and Larry Mays are the sole shareholders of MRM. The then prevailing rules of the [FAA]) will apply. The parties agree MRM did not separately advise Cooper that she was giving up her right to a jury trial. She was forced to quit in August 2000. Standard of Review We review de novo the district court's holding that the arbitration agreement is invalid and unenforceable. Will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous: If the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety. It would have No. 02 5702 Cooper v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/65D10B41F8789D0E88256E5A00707CB7/$file/9916391.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Airlines argue that Chapter 12B of the San Francisco Administrative Code ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C2FA43604F5CB31A8825723A005ACAC0/$file/0315955.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Judge CLIFTON joins as to Part II A and II B: The question before us is whether a provision to submit to arbitration in a written franchise agreement is valid and enforceable. A three judge panel of our court held that the unconscionability of an arbitration provision contained in the franchise agreement is a question for the arbitrator to decide. It was error to hold that consideration of the unconscionability of the arbitration provision was to be determined by the arbitrator. Is unconscionable must be referred to the arbitrator. When the crux of the complaint is not the invalidity of the contract as a whole. Then the federal courts must decide whether the arbitration provision is invalid and unenforceable under 9 U.S.C. § 2 of the FAA.1 The federal courts cannot shirk their statutory obligation to do so simply because controlling substantive state law requires the court to consider. No cause of action in the complaint alleges that the franchise agreement is invalid because it is a contract of adhesion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A2491269CDA0A17A88256AC4000421E5/$file/9916391.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Airlines argue that Chapter 12B of the San Francisco Administrative Code ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943560.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where it was sold. The principal source for obtaining Mexican marijuana was defendant appellant Irma Alred. Who was Irma Calderon in the mid 1980's when the conspiracy began. After delivering approximately 300 pounds of marijuana to coconspirator Charles Douglas Mixon in Holmes County and remaining there until it was sold. Numerous shipments intercepted through traffic stops by law enforcement agents were destined for her. The marijuana was concealed in an extra propane gas tank on trucks traveling from Texas to Holmes County. Three codefendants went to trial.2 At least twenty one smuggling ventures were documented by law In addition to Irma Alred and Roy Alred. The other seven defendants named in the superseding indictment were: Charlie Junior Alred. The other three defendants who went to trial with Irma Alred and Roy Alred were Virginia Lee Blackmon. Roy Alred and the three remaining codefendants were convicted. Irma Alred was sentenced to 364 months of imprisonment. Roy Alred was sentenced to 293 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052232np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 200 respectively) were to be held in escrow until May 31. Count II claimed that YDI was liable to Zavecz for conversion as to those shares. Count III sought a declaratory judgment that Zavecz was entitled to an additional 49. YDI sought damages for the failure to transfer all intellectual property interests from TEA to YDI in breach of the Asset Purchase Agreement and a declaratory judgment to the effect that it was under no obligation to issue any shares to Zavecz. Holding that Zavecz </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/951957P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1991.2 The facts of this case are provided in detail in the opinion of the District Court. The following is a summary of the facts material to Klimstra alleged that as she was driving on Although the unidentified car did 1329 (D. She was thrown from her car She was hospitalized and received medical care At the time of the accident. Klimstra for third and fourth degree burns. was a resident of Wisconsin. Does not make physical contact with the other vehicle. 2 2 Change of Residence When the change of location is from one state to another and you are a risk still acceptable to us at the time you notify us of the change. Daly informed Klimstra that the Granstrom Agency was not authorized to write insurance policies in Wisconsin and did not have access to Wisconsin insurance rates. She The Smader Agency is not Klimstra met in person with Nancy Gregerson of the Smader Agency. 000 Gregerson also informed Klimstra that because her Wisconsin premium was $90.00 lower than her Minnesota premium. The application was signed by Klimstra and the Smader Agency with coverage bound effective June Klimstra applied her unearned premium from the Minnesota policy Klimstra toward payment of the initial premium on her Wisconsin policy. policy would become effective as of June 11. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0831p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lawrence Seidman ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-5052.htm">03-5052 -- ALLISON V. UNUM INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 08/25/2004<BR></A><BR> Alleging that she was entitled to disability benefits under the plan. Finding that the bad faith claim was preempted by ERISA. 1132(a)(1)(B) claim was correct because UNUM has established by substantial evidence that its denial of benefits. Was reasonable. Under a provision entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/051201P.pdf">P:\DOCS\E-DOS\1-25\05-1201 DCS SANITATION V. ELOY CASTILLO.WPD<BR></A><BR> (2) were responsible for enforcing regulatory safety requirements and satisfying third party audit requirements. (3) were familiar with staffing requirements for cleaning the Tyson plant. I will not directly or indirectly engage in. Or corporation in competition with [DCS] or engaged in providing contract cleaning services within a radius of one hundred (100) miles of any customer of [DCS] or with any customer or client of [DCS] or any entity or enterprise having business dealings with [DCS] which is then providing its own cleaning services in house or which requests my assistance or knowledge of contract cleaning services to provide its own cleaning services in house. Is entitled to an injunction to 2 be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction enjoining and restraining employee from committing any violation of this provision and employee hereby consents to the issuance of the injunction. The district court thus applied Nebraska law to determine the validity of the noncompete agreements and concluded the noncompete agreements were overbroad and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200311688.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district court's order. Is brought before the court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/062596P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The arbitration panel found that the Hudsons' tort claims were barred by res judicata and therefore granted ConAgra's motion for summary disposition. This two tiered compensation provision was absent from prior agreements between the parties. ConAgra alleges that it was a uniform addition in its contracts with other growers that year. The Hudsons objected to retrofitting their houses and to the lower compensation for chickens raised in facilities that were not retrofitted. The Hudsons alleged that ConAgra was intentionally tardy in picking up the full grown birds. That the claims should not have been subjected to arbitration. They argue that the district court erred in compelling arbitration of their tort claims because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027338R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hamdi is being held according to the time honored laws and customs of war. There is nothing illegal about that. The question is essentially whether the United States can capture and detain prisoners of war without subjecting the factual circumstances surrounding foreign battlefield seizures to extensive in court review.1 The answer to this is now and always has been yes. I regret that my colleague does not even quote the provisions of Article I and Article II which delegate the conduct of war to the coordinate The government does not concede that Hamdi is a prisoner of war. Rather asserts that he is an unlawful combatant. The distinction is irrelevant because the decision to detain until the cessation of hostilities belongs to the executive in either case. The panel earlier expressed doubt that the timing of a cessation of hostilities was even justiciable. Is a question too fraught with gravity even to be adequately formulated when not compelled. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943560.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where it was sold. The principal source for obtaining Mexican marijuana was defendant appellant Irma Alred. Who was Irma Calderon in the mid 1980's when the conspiracy began. After delivering approximately 300 pounds of marijuana to coconspirator Charles Douglas Mixon in Holmes County and remaining there until it was sold. Numerous shipments intercepted through traffic stops by law enforcement agents were destined for her. The marijuana was concealed in an extra propane gas tank on trucks traveling from Texas to Holmes 3 County. Three codefendants went to trial.2 At least twenty one smuggling ventures were documented by law enforcement In addition to Irma Alred and Roy Alred. The other seven defendants named in the superseding indictment were: Charlie Junior Alred. The other three defendants who went to trial with Irma Alred and Roy Alred were Virginia Lee Blackmon. The marijuana was hidden in an extra propane gas tank concealed on trucks during the trip from Texas to North Florida. Gonzalez was stopped by the Florida Highway Patrol after leaving the North Florida area on April 22. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991991.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 10 the line is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/94-4846.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MCCUTCHEON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Disqualification of Counsel</i><p> <p> The procedural history of this case need not be recited here since it is well known to the parties who are not in conflict on the basic trial history. Todd McCutcheon was arraigned on June 4. The cases were consolidated on McCutcheon's motion.<p> On July 12. It was later disclosed to the court that Aiken had represented Samuels in a crack cocaine case a few years ago. The district court held that Aiken was disqualified and could not represent McCutcheon in a trial of the co defendants. The cases were eventually severed because of conflicts in counsel's schedule. McCutcheon was fairly tried and properly convicted. The evidence was presented to a properly instructed jury which rejected this defense. There was no argument made that he did not in fact make the sales of crack cocaine as alleged.<p> Therefore. The issue that counsel quite properly focuses on is the fourth component of the right to counsel: the right to counsel of choice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/94-4846.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MCCUTCHEON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Disqualification of Counsel</i><p> <p> The procedural history of this case need not be recited here since it is well known to the parties who are not in conflict on the basic trial history. Todd McCutcheon was arraigned on June 4. The cases were consolidated on McCutcheon's motion.<p> On July 12. It was later disclosed to the court that Aiken had represented Samuels in a crack cocaine case a few years ago. The district court held that Aiken was disqualified and could not represent McCutcheon in a trial of the co defendants. The cases were eventually severed because of conflicts in counsel's schedule. McCutcheon was fairly tried and properly convicted. The evidence was presented to a properly instructed jury which rejected this defense. There was no argument made that he did not in fact make the sales of crack cocaine as alleged.<p> Therefore. The issue that counsel quite properly focuses on is the fourth component of the right to counsel: the right to counsel of choice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944846.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Disqualification of Counsel The procedural history of this case need not be recited here since it is well known to the parties who are not in conflict on the basic trial history. Todd McCutcheon was arraigned on June 4. The cases were consolidated on McCutcheon's motion. It was later disclosed to the court that Aiken had represented Samuels in a crack cocaine case a few years ago. The district court held that Aiken was disqualified and could not represent McCutcheon in a trial of the co defendants. the trials. The cases were eventually severed because of conflicts in counsel's schedule. McCutcheon From all that appears in the fairly tried and properly was convicted. The evidence was presented to a properly instructed jury which rejected this defense. There was no argument made that he did not in fact make the sales of crack cocaine as alleged. The issue that counsel quite properly focuses on is the fourth component of the right to counsel: of choice. the right to counsel We have consistently held that while the right to counsel is absolute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1A7924992EA97A888256CCA00114F39/$file/0117316.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Falotti was scheduled to vest his remaining stock options worth more than 85 million U.S. dollars. Oracle brought this action seeking a declaration that Falotti is neither entitled to vest these stock options nor to receive their value as damages. We have jurisdiction and affirm. Oracle contacted Falotti who at the time was an executive with AT&T about a job offer. He was also Though technically Falotti worked for Oracle Switzerland. Because it does not affect the analysis save for one issue discussed in Section IV.C this opinion will refer to both Oracle Switzerland and Oracle Corporation as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9BEA81FE4FF2BE3788256CFC00578B47/$file/0135593.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Placed an anonymous telephone call to law enforcement officials directing them to the locations of the bodies of two children whom McClure was ultimately convicted of killing. THOMPSON 4573 ing there was no breach of the duty of confidentiality and no actual conflict of interest. The body of Carol Jones was found in her home in Grants Pass. A gun cabinet in the home had been forced open and a .44 caliber revolver was missing. Age 10 were also missing. Were found in the blood in the home. McClure was arrested in connection with the death of Carol Jones and the disappearance of the children. Which were in locations more than 60 miles apart. McClure was indicted for the murders of Carol Jones and her children. McClure was found guilty of all three murders and was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences with 30 year minimums. His conviction was affirmed without opinion. The substance of the conversations between McClure and Mecca are the subject of significant dispute. Mecca recorded his account in notes that he wrote immediately after the children's bodies were discovered. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/023332P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Covey was a certified public accountant. The Harts were brothers and aspired to open a motorcycle business. 000 of the loan was an origination fee. 000 was collateral for interest on the loan. The Portions of this background discussion are taken directly from this panel's earlier decision. 000 was collateral on the principal. The documentation represented that the Harts' motorcycle business inventory was to be collateral for the loan. This large sum of cash was bound by rubber bands and was delivered to Mr. The Harts suspected that they were under investigation and that Mr. Covey was cooperating with law enforcement. Covey claims that an advice of counsel 3 defense should have been presented to the jury to rebut the government's attempt to paint his actions in concluding the loan as criminal. Findings of underlying predicate facts are reviewed for clear error. The Court has recognized that `the right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1996/96a1323p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lejeune was injured while working on a piece of machinery Appellees had repaired. He was responsible for checking the oil and lubrication of various machines. Are rotated in order to transport hot steel slabs from one processing machine to another. Believing a certain table was deactivated. The cylinders were activated. LeJeune was caught in the gap between them. His injuries were serious and extensive. General Electric employees were on site for eight months repairing equipment. If there is no false conflict. Does not recognize strict products liability based on the rationale that such claims are preempted by the Uniform Commercial Code. Delaware's interests would be impaired if Pennsylvania law were applied. A false conflict exists </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116901.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Jerry Paul Henderson ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3AE08EE375DF613B88256AD1005BFD3B/$file/9956472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Massanari is substituted for his predecessor. Rice is an 13441 unpublished disposition. Is available on Westlaw#FC# and LEXIS#FC#. It is marked with the following notice: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/07432B45A25F9CF388256E5A00707CDC/$file/9956472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Massanari is substituted for his predecessor. Rice is an 13441 unpublished disposition. Is available on Westlaw#FC# and LEXIS#FC#. It is marked with the following notice: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/96-3506.man.html">MILLS V. SINGLETARY (12/1/1998, NO. 96-3506)<BR></A><BR> Was stopped and detained by an officer on his way to the crime scene. Then they were released.</P> <P> At trial Mills' roommate [Sylvester Davis] testified that he and his girlfriend [Viola May Stafford] hid some shotgun shells that Mills had given them. He also stated that Mills told him that a city worker had found a shotgun later shown to have fired an expended shell found near the victim's home.</P> <P> After the murder. Ashley was arrested on some unrelated charges. Ashley saw the man in the house had awakened and was getting up. Ashley was granted immunity from prosecution for these crimes and also for several unrelated charges pending against him at the time he decided to confess and cooperate.</P> <P> Mills testified in his defense. (5) whether his conviction for aggravated battery was improper. (6) whether his convictions for both felony murder and burglary were improper. (7) whether the trial judge's override of the jury's recommendation was improper. <EM>See Mills. The Florida Supreme Court held that Mills's contentions concerning ineffective assistance and gunshot residue tests were meritless. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/96-3506.man.html">MILLS V. SINGLETARY (12/1/1998, NO. 96-3506)<BR></A><BR> Was stopped and detained by an officer on his way to the crime scene. Then they were released.</P> <P> At trial Mills' roommate [Sylvester Davis] testified that he and his girlfriend [Viola May Stafford] hid some shotgun shells that Mills had given them. He also stated that Mills told him that a city worker had found a shotgun later shown to have fired an expended shell found near the victim's home.</P> <P> After the murder. Ashley was arrested on some unrelated charges. Ashley saw the man in the house had awakened and was getting up. Ashley was granted immunity from prosecution for these crimes and also for several unrelated charges pending against him at the time he decided to confess and cooperate.</P> <P> Mills testified in his defense. (5) whether his conviction for aggravated battery was improper. (6) whether his convictions for both felony murder and burglary were improper. (7) whether the trial judge's override of the jury's recommendation was improper. <EM>See Mills. The Florida Supreme Court held that Mills's contentions concerning ineffective assistance and gunshot residue tests were meritless. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-4153.htm">96-4153 -- VIERNOW V. EURIPIDES DEVELOPMENT CORP. -- 09/14/1998<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0959p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also hold that Michael's complaint to the extent that it relies on fraud perpetrated by Shiley on the FDA is pre empted. While we will affirm the district court's pre emption rulings as to Michael's negligence. We will reverse the district court's summary judgment to the extent that it entered judgment against Michael on her express warranty and fraud claims. Which was designed and manufactured by Shiley Inc. B. The Shiley valve was one of the first medical devices to be approved under the 1976 Medical Device Amendments to the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/995237.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Woessner ar gues that neither the builder's statute of Delaware nor New Jersey should preclude her action because her injuries wer e the result of alleged defects in production machinery and therefore were not covered by the scope of either builder's statute. One component of the construction was a 2. That motor control center was manufactured by International Switchboard to the specifications demanded by Olsen and was integrated into the production process of the facility in 1973. Cardox was later acquir ed by Air Liquide. Woessner was employed as a field technician by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/014374p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants were charged with Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) conspiracy and a RICO substantive count. Thefts of goods in interstate commerce were among the thirty six racketeering acts and thirty six counts charged. All of the seven defendants were convicted of at least some of the charged offenses. Alleging anything to do with murder or violent crimes in aid of racketeering and many of the numerous extortion racketeering acts and counts were found by the jury to be wanting and resulted in findings of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/23F2B067DAC26E288825713E004DC7A2/$file/0316340.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Christopher Weber was appointed by a Texas state court as a receiver for the marital estate of Tracy O'Reilly Kohlrautz and Franz Wilhelm Kohlrautz. I. Background The Kohlrautzes were married in Luxembourg in 1981. Kohlrautz were domiciled in Texas for purposes of divorce proceedings in that state. Her complaint alleges that two pieces of Nevada property owned by Oilmen are assets of the marital estate. Oilmen's central contention against Weber was that he engaged in tortious abuse of process in assisting Ms. The district court concluded that Weber was protected by absolute immunity for acts within the scope of his authority as receiver. The court held that there were triable questions of fact as to whether he committed acts outside his authority. We have asked for and received supplemental briefing on the issue of what law is applicable to this case. Interlocutory Review and Standard of Review [1] We do not ordinarily have jurisdiction to review a denial of a motion for summary judgment because such a denial is not a final judgment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/985468.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a trade secret case filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by BP Chemicals Ltd. The undisputed facts are as follows. FCFC is a publicly traded Taiwanese corporation with its principal place of business in Taipei. FCFC is a subsidiary of a Taiwanese conglomerate known as the Formosa Plastics Group (FPG). Which is owned by Y.C. FCFC has a contract with JOC under which JOC will fabricate vessels in New Jersey for delivery to FCFC in Taiwan. It is performance of this contract that the instant action seeks to enjoin. The process for soliciting bids was that 4 FCFC's engineering team would prepare a bid package and send it to a purchasing group. That the purchasing group was actually the purchasing group of FPG. There is no evidence that any U.S. vendor received bid packages directly from FCFC. FCFC also has business contacts with the United States that are unrelated to its acetic acid plant project. Lummus is receiving daily faxes from FCFC in Taiwan. These sales were normally made in Taiwan through Taiwanese agents. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1249.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murphy and Menard Murphy & Walsh were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. On the basis that the action was preempted by federal law. While Doulamis is not named as the aggrieved employee in these charges. Both parties agree that the employee referred to therein is. It is also alleged that these employees formed. That Chaulk's conduct was a deliberate attempt to discourage the employees from engaging in these activities. A full and comprehensive settlement agreement was reached between Chaulk and the NLRB in March 1995 regarding these claims. In that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/052478P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> John Winfield was convicted in Missouri state court of multiple counts of murder. Armed criminal action and was sentenced to death. After his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court on direct appeal. That motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 1 petition was denied. Winfield was granted a certificate of appealability on three issues. All of which have been briefed and argued. Winfield was unaware of this relationship and called her apartment numerous times between 10:00 and 11:00 pm that evening trying to reach her. He spoke with Melody and asked where Carmelita was. Winfield told Melody to have Carmelita call him when she got home. By that time Melody had learned from Arthea that Carmelita was out with Reynolds. So the two women decided to lie to Winfield and told him that she was with Arthea's mother. As he was leaving the apartment. Winfield was waiting for her. He forced her into an adjacent parking lot to talk and repeatedly asked Carmelita whether she was having a relationship with Reynolds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/04/991731P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Beverly Garner was a passenger in a Chevrolet Blazer that was involved in a head on collision with another vehicle. Then brought a products liability action contending their mother was killed as a result of a faulty fuel pump that caused the engine fire in the Blazer. GM filed a motion arguing that the document should not be admitted because it was irrelevant. We do not decide whether this order was subject to appellate review. Copies of two of these documents were later posted on the Internet. We reversed the order instructing GM to produce the documents to the Bakers until the district court had conducted a review to determine whether the documents were protected by the work product doctrine or attorney client privilege. Four of the documents are the hand written notes taken by GM's attorneys during interviews of Ivey. One document is the hand written notes taken by a nonattorney member of GM's litigation team during an interview conducted in the presence of a GM attorney. One document is a typed summary prepared by a GM attorney shortly after an interview. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B0C4DE16989259F88256EE1007AB883/$file/0499003.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is scheduled to be executed on August 12. I Terry Dennis was charged with first degree murder in the Nevada state district court in Washoe County on March 29. Was evaluated by a psychiatrist. Was determined to be competent to stand trial. Was able to assist in his own defense. The court found that Dennis was competent to enter a guilty plea. Evidence was presented that Dennis suffered from mental illness including bipolar disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder that he had a long history of suicide attempts. Butko was appointed as habeas counsel on April 25. Before his appeal was heard. The letter to the Nevada A detailed description of the crime is found in the Nevada Supreme Court's opinion affirming Dennis's conviction and sentence. Butko is doing all she can to delay things hoping I'll change my mind but I've been thinking this over for quite some time now and I assure you my mind's made up and I know what I'm doing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C9D33A3EF8BC665C88256D95005BFD72/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> STEWART 12713 I It is the raw material from which legal fiction is forged: A vicious murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2304.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Dwyer & Collora were on brief. We affirm the district court's finding that the law interferes with the foreign affairs power of the federal government and is thus unconstitutional. We further find that the Massachusetts Burma Law violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal sanctions against Burma. There is one matter on which the parties are agreed: human rights conditions in Burma are deplorable. Final determination as to whether a company is in fact </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1997/97a1547p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the judgment of the district court. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1820p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the appointment of the trustee and reverse the order denying Gibbons's motion for an order authorizing employment of the Firm as his counsel. Two groups loomed large in the bankruptcy proceedings: one was an Official Bondholders' Committee and an indenture trustee. Under which the holding companies would have infused $100 million into Marvel in return for priority recognition of the Lenders' debt claims. The Icahn interests contended that the Perelman controlled Marvel debtors were favoring their </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B100A61F8EA22967882572C6007C3359/$file/0417353.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BACKGROUND JAL is a Japanese commercial air carrier based in Tokyo. Ventress and Crawford were employed by HACS to perform services for JAL flights. HACS informed Crawford that his assignment to JAL was cancelled because of unsatisfactory performance. All claims were brought under California law. Or is about to provide (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be provided to the employer or Federal Government information relating to any violation or alleged violation of any order. That Hawaii was the more convenient forum for potential witnesses and for accessing HACS's personnel records. The Hawaii district court granted judgment on the pleadings for JAL on the ground that all of plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Friendship. Even if they were not preempted. Saying that the issue was mooted by its decision on treaty preemption. Although Ventress and Crawford were represented by the same lawyer when they filed the complaint. (3) whether the interlocutory order compelling arbitration is appealable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1751.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Intentionally or criminally caused or incurred by an insured person </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5AFF49CD7FF0CAB288256F5B005976B3/$file/0316152.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case involves a murder that only one of two people could have committed: the appellant. Lewis was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to an aggregate term of 95 years to life. Lewis was represented at trial by a lawyer who had represented Berg on another matter immediately prior to undertaking Lewis' defense. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Evidence Relating to the Crime Kurtis Mitchell was killed by a shotgun blast in El Dorado County. Although Lewis had told Berg that Mitchell's threat was against the entire family. Berg testified later that he did not feel threatened by Mitchell because they were friends. Berg borrowed a shotgun and shells from his neighbor and told him that there were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611582.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: At issue today is whether the district court erred in dismissing. We conclude that the district court did indeed have subject matter jurisdiction. Have various usury laws that generally prohibit such high interest loans. No one doubts that when so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0967p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings. We will limit the triable issues on remand to a determination of: (1) the definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972236.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 2236 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Is a Texas cabinet manufacturer who contracted to purchase maple veneer plywood from Appellee. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district court determined that the parties' choice of law agreement was controlling and. Both of which contained the following language on the front side of the form: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/031181np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MasterShare's forfeiture clause is unlawful. That MasterShare's forfeiture clause is valid under NY law. We will not recite the complete factual background of this case. If they were terminated for cause or voluntarily left Prudential before the 4 end of a three year </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/93-5317.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1536.html">ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC V. JAN COYLE<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Russell B. Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>F. ) was invalid and that EFI had not misappropriated defendants' alleged trade secrets or breached any contract entered into with defendants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We conclude that the district court may exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants and such jurisdiction comports with due process.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We therefore reverse and remand.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <h2 align=center style='margin left:0in. Is a world leader in the area of software and hardware imaging solutions for network printing.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>EFI develops. Which are devices that control printers and copiers.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Defendant appellee Kolbet Labs is a Nevada corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>EFI believes that defendant appellee Coyle. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/93-5317.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2972.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hall was charged in Count One of a three count indictment for conspiracy to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute the drug in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1). We now remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there was an actual conflict of interest. BACKGROUND Kevin Hall is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Greenville. Was when he was indicted. Fleming was appointed as Hall's counsel on September 10. Fleming revealed his representation of Gignac to the Assistant United State's Attorney who was prosecuting Hall. Was involved in the distribution of marijuana while serving as a corrections officer at FCI Greenville. Fleming concluded by noting his concern that his serving as Gignac's counsel created a conflict of interest in his representation of Hall: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414763.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The first issue is whether. The second issue is whether. The district court was not required to hold a second hearing to determine whether Garcia's lawyer should have been disqualified due to a conflict of interest. Addressed several facts that also are relevant to this appeal. Molina is the sisterin law of Garza. She also is the sister in law of Sebastian Cuevas. Nunez stated he was from Houston and admitted that Cuevas was his cousin. Nunez denied that he was involved in drug trafficking. A month before Nunez was arrested. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414368.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allstate Indemnity Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/410347FABA0293F388257251006DF1D1/$file/0510067.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. 19790 UNITED STATES v. The government was also required to give up all notes made by reviewing agents. 1 UNITED STATES v. The subpoenas were returnable on February 5. Consists of two professional baseball leagues the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs and the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs. 4 The names of the players are under seal and are not disclosed in this opinion. 5 CDT is a third party administrator of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-6217.htm">97-6217 -- STOUFFER V. REYNOLDS -- 01/15/1999<BR></A><BR> Whose estranged wife was dating Petitioner. Petitioner was subsequently sentenced to death on the first conviction and life imprisonment on the second. Only six of which are preserved for our review. Pivotal to them is whether Petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel during the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. Which is most hampered in assessing counsel's performance during the penalty phase. Who was dating Velva Ivens after she had separated from Doug. Told her he was going out to pick up his mail at his post office box. Rushed in telling Doug he feared Velva and the girls were endangered. Telling the operator Petitioner was the shooter and directing the police to his wife's home. <p> Petitioner's version differed. Was there. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-6217a.htm">97-6217A -- STOUFFER V. REYNOLDS -- 01/15/1999<BR></A><BR> Whose estranged wife was dating Petitioner. Petitioner was subsequently sentenced to death on the first conviction and life imprisonment on the second. Only six of which are preserved for our review. Pivotal to them is whether Petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel during the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. Which is most hampered in assessing counsel's performance during the penalty phase. Who was dating Velva Ivens after she had separated from Doug. Told her he was going out to pick up his mail at his post office box. Rushed in telling Doug he feared Velva and the girls were endangered. Telling the operator Petitioner was the shooter and directing the police to his wife's home. <p> Petitioner's version differed. Was there. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/97-5316a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Alan B. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Although federal student loan policy now recognizes school misconduct defenses against lenders who have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/034363p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether ERISA preempts Pennsylvania's bad faith statute for insurance claims. C.S. § 8371 is conflict preempted by ERISA. We will reverse the judgment of the District C ourt and rema nd w ith instructions to dismiss Barber's bad faith claim. Benefits under the plan were insured under a group long term disability policy Barber's employer obtained from defendant UNU M Life Insura nce Company of America. U NUM subsequently terminated the benefits after determining Barber was no longer disabled under the policy's terms. To obtain a declaratory judgment that he is entitled to benefits. C.S. § 8371 because it is a separate enforcement scheme with a punitive damages provision that adds to the detailed provisions of ERISA's remedial mechanism. The court may take all of the following actions: (1) Award interest on the amount of the claim from the date the claim was made by the insured in an amount equal to the prime rate of interest plus 3%. (2) Award punitive damages against the insurer. (3) Assess court costs and attorney fees against the insurer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1232p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That even if the New Jersey rule is applicable. Dragon is entitled to an increased fee under the terms of the rule because of the extraordinary time and effort it devoted to this case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As none of the defendants have filed briefs. This matter is before us on appellants' brief only. Although the appeal was filed on behalf of both Dragon and the Mitzels. We will treat only Dragon as the appellant. I. Kirk Mitzel was severely injured at a construction site in New Jersey when a steel beam on which he was working collapsed and fell 26 feet to the ground. Were Pennsylvania residents at the time and retained Dragon to pursue worker's compensation and personal injury claims on their behalf. Before the complaint was filed. Two attorneys from the firm were admitted pro hac vice to the District Court of New Jersey on May 18. Accumulating fifty two expandable files of documents that are over twenty two feet thick. It also claims to have incurred considerable costs in travelling to Pittsburgh and Orlando to inspect documents. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034363p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether ERISA preempts Pennsylvania's bad faith statute for insurance claims. C.S. § 8371 is conflict preempted by ERISA. We will reverse the judgment of the District C ourt and rema nd w ith instructions to dismiss Barber's bad faith claim. Benefits under the plan were insured under a group long term disability policy Barber's employer obtained from defendant UNU M Life Insura nce Company of America. U NUM subsequently terminated the benefits after determining Barber was no longer disabled under the policy's terms. To obtain a declaratory judgment that he is entitled to benefits. C.S. § 8371 because it is a separate enforcement scheme with a punitive damages provision that adds to the detailed provisions of ERISA's remedial mechanism. The court may take all of the following actions: (1) Award interest on the amount of the claim from the date the claim was made by the insured in an amount equal to the prime rate of interest plus 3%. (2) Award punitive damages against the insurer. (3) Assess court costs and attorney fees against the insurer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6110E37D1BB6235888256F0A005794A0/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended to replace all of the text in sub section </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3528_021.pdf">C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\DQ_1\MY DOCUMENTS\OPINIONS\US V. WARNER AND RYAN 06-3517 OPINION AND DISSENT2.WPD<BR></A><BR> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the trial may not have been This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. * 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1435.html">MIDWEST INDUSTRIES V. KARAVAN TRAILERS, INC.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were H. Of counsel was Curtis A. Of counsel on the brief was Don Cayen. Have joined Part II A of this opinion.<p> BRYSON. Holding that they are barred by federal patent law. We hold that we will apply Federal Circuit law in determining whether patent law conflicts with other federal statutes or preempts state law causes of action. Those decisions in which we have held that regional circuit law governs in resolving such issues. As is typically true of watercraft trailers. Midwest also alleged that Karavan's conduct violated Midwest's rights under the Iowa common law of trademarks.<p> Midwest is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Would interfere with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3517_026.pdf">C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\DQ_1\MY DOCUMENTS\OPINIONS\US V. WARNER AND RYAN 06-3517 OPINION AND DISSENT2.WPD<BR></A><BR> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the trial may not have been This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. * 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3517_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the OE This opinion was originally released in typescript on August 21. 2007. 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 trial may not have been picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0327p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> May Ridge was to pay $242. The parties agreed that May Ridge's obligations under the Lease were to be secured3 inter alia. May Ridge was to maintain a minimum net worth </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9284_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs tell a compelling story and are not the first to tell it. Similar allegations have appeared in a separate class action. In complaints filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9284_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs tell a compelling story and are not the first to tell it. Similar allegations have appeared in a separate class action. In complaints filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2204.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pollock</SPAN> were on brief. Sheehan P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. They have historically had the ability to elect a representative of their choice with the help of crossover votes in one of the former districts. After the districts were redrawn. The victor in the primary was effectively assured of being the victor in the general election.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-3050.htm">00-3050 -- MIRVILLE V. MIRVILLE -- 03/21/2001<BR></A><BR> Background <p> The facts necessary to resolve this appeal are undisputed: <p> This case arises from an automobile accident which occurred near Topeka. Joseph Mirville was driving a car on Interstate 70 which was struck from behind after he stopped in a lane of traffic. [<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan97/95-1464.wpd.html">YODER V. HONEYWELL INC.<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs assert that summary judgment was improper because material issues of fact remain as to whether (1) Bull was the alter ego or instru mentality of its parent Honeywell. (2) Honeywell was a manufacturer or apparent manufacturer under Colorado law and Restatement (Second) of Torts 400. Honeywell was the only defendant at that time. In plaintiffs' amended complaint they alleged that Honeywell and/or Bull manufactured the keyboard equipment and asserted that Bull and its predecessors were alter egos or instrumentalities of Honeywell. The court first found that Honeywell was not liable to plaintiffs as a manufacturer of the keyboards. Based on [a former Honeywell em ployee's] examination of the keyboards he determined that the keyboards were not manufactured by Honeywell. Plaintiffs have made no showing that a genuine issue of fact exists that Honeywell manufactured. Finding that plaintiffs' claim was time barred. II Plaintiffs first assert that summary judgment(1) in favor of Honeywell was improper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1124p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have before us a petition filed by one parent against the other under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Concluding that the United States was Evan's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/99/99-1492.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Terry Young were collectively convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Cox and Young were also convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. Mohammad Mansoori was convicted of engaging in monetary transactions involving funds derived from criminal activity. 99 3623 was convicted of money laundering. Who were engaged in narcotics trafficking had organized a drug deal that. Was assigned to transfer the cocaine from White to another TVL member. Once Bronson was in possession of the cocaine. Mohammad Mansoori was not a member of TVL. Choice were all members of TVL. Was in charge of the drug sales. Mansoori made several large cash payments to contractors for a house he was having built in Highland Park. He used Young's money to make the purchase and understood that the house was actually Young's. An IRS agent testified that he did not think that Young could have purchased the property with his legitimate sources of income. The defendants were using to conduct their narcotics business. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/997.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will refer to Respondent as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD82194097E1066888256C3000546E6D/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where Williams was staying. They went to a 7 Eleven where Owens was sweeping the parking lot. Saying: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1502.html">PHONOMETRICS, INC V. ECONOMY INNS<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Lawrence B. For defendant appellee RHI Hotels.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Kristin A. For defendants appellees Fairmont Hotel Management and Grosvenor Hotels Group.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Howard A. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510636.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Maxcess was formed for the purpose of providing local and longdistance telecommunications services via voice over internet. Which according to Lucent was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/00-6090.htm">00-6090 -- BRYAN V. MULLIN -- 07/21/2003<BR></A><BR> INTRODUCTION</strong></center> <p> Robert Leroy Bryan was convicted in Oklahoma state court of first degree malice murder and sentenced to death. <em>See Bryan v. (3) counsel was ineffective at both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial because counsel failed to present mental health evidence. (4) he was incompetent to stand trial. A panel of this court unanimously concluded that Bryan was not entitled to relief on his evidence sufficiency. Was almost entirely circumstantial. A potted plant was also found at Inabel's home. A pillowcase was duct taped over her head. There was a single set of vehicle tracks present at the scene. The tracks matched the tread pattern of the right rear tire on Bryan's rental car. <p> Authorities searched the property where Inabel's body was found because. Like that on the property where Inabel's body was discovered. Fibers lining the trunk were similar to those on Inabel's clothes and tape found on or near her body. <p> Police located additional evidence in Bryan's bedroom tying Bryan to the murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/98-7022a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was James W. The goal was to arrange a $122 million </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/85E12F7AAC2A420688256FB70000CDB6/$file/0315695.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We further conclude that NASD rules approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission have preemptive force over conflicting state law. Section 6 of the California Constitution requires the [California Judicial Council] to improve the administration of justice by . . . [a]dopting rules for court administration and rules of practice and procedure that are not inconsistent with statute . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1171.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1993 is corrected as follows: On page 24. Medeiros was on brief. Sachse & Endreson was on brief for Common Cause and Common Cause of R.I. With whom Licht & Semonoff was on brief. Cutler & Pickering were on brief. The entity charged with primary responsibility for implementing these laws is the Rhode Island Board of Elections. The reports are to include the name. The 4 Board of Elections is empowered to halt PACs from using names which are misleading or which do not accurately identify a committee's membership and contributor base. Does not apply in the same way to PACs sponsored by labor unions or those which are funded through payroll checkoff plans. 3 the state will match money raised from private 2From and after January 1. Candidates for certain other statewide offices are also eligible to receive public funding. We limit our discussion to gubernatorial candidates. 3The eligibility criteria are set forth in R.I. The election and pledge are irrevocable. Persons seeking state elective office must file formal declarations of candidacy in June of the year in which the election is to be held. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1559.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Potash were on brief for appellant. Blankstein & Lund were on brief for appellee. Two principal issues are raised on appeal: first. Whether a nonclient can maintain an action against an attorney when that attorney negligently certifies to a mortgagee that the title is good. Milford was represented in the 1988 transaction by appellee Antonellis. The mortgagee [held] a good and sufficient record first mortgage to the property. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9EE41A683AB268888825709D005626B0/$file/0415919.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2005 is amended as follows: Slip op. p. 7454. Add after </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044245np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Theodore Tinsley was convicted by a jury on July 16. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1291. Will affirm. 2 I. Tinsley was spotted driving by two law enforcement officers who knew from recent encounters that Tinsley had a suspended license. They also noticed that his license plate was not illuminated as required by law. Tinsley was pulled over to the side of the road. No drug paraphernalia was found on his person or in his vehicle. The gun was recovered and found to be fully loaded. Tinsley was indicted on December 3. It is relevant and can be relevant for purposes of proving the case by the government. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1169b.html">ALLI COMMTY MEDIA V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4070.htm">96-4070 -- DESARIO V. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. -- 10/20/1997<BR></A><BR> The plaintiff was a passenger in her mother's automobile when the car collided with another vehicle in Salt Lake City. Have incurred over $29. There is no dispute here regarding them. <p> Through her guardian ad litem. The insured is sued on a bodily injury claim by a member of her own household. In Wyoming it is $25. 000 (as it is in Utah). <u>See</u> Wyo. The policy was drafted by State Farm to conform with Wyoming law. Rosanna and Carly are both Wyoming residents. The step down clause is valid and State Farm is entitled to summary judgment. The step down clause is invalid under Utah law and she should be entitled to the full $100. A federal court must look to the conflict of law rules of the forum state to determine which state's law will control. <u>See</u> <u>Mountain Fuel Supply v. Given that the contract was negotiated in Wyoming. The Mitchells are residents of Wyoming. The car itself (the subject matter of the contract) was registered and garaged in Wyoming. The principal location of the automobile was Wyoming. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar98/97-8021.man.html">IRVING V. MAZDA MOTOR CORP. (3/5/1998, NO. 97-8021)<BR></A><BR> The district court decided that Plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by federal law. Bonita was killed in a single car accident while driving a 1990 Mazda MX 6. Plaintiff filed this suit claiming that the seat belts in the MX 6 were defectively designed and that Mazda failed to warn consumers adequately of the risks of not utilizing all portions particularly the manual lap belt portion of the safety belt system.</P> <P> The safety belt system used in the Mazda MX 6 included a two point passive shoulder restraint (automatic shoulder belt) with a manual lap belt. This kind of restraint system was one of three options provided to car manufacturers by FMVSS 208. Plaintiff contends the design represented by this option was defective.</P> <P> Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that FMVSS 208 both expressly and impliedly preempts state law (including common law) claims and that no recovery can be had on a claim based on the use of a design permitted by the federal standards. The district court granted this motion and concluding that Plaintiff's failure to warn claim was dependent upon the design defect claim also dismissed Plaintiff's failure to warn claim.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>Discussion</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Whether Plaintiff's state law claims are preempted under the federal law is reviewed by this Court <EM>de novo. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0147p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because Gillard is not entitled to habeas relief. Among the guests were Ronnie Postlethwaite. There was a fight between Ensign and Gillard. Postlethwaite and Hendricks were both awakened by a gunshot outside. The next thing Postlethwaite recalled was hearing the back door slammed open. He heard heavy steps </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/97-8021.man.html">IRVING V. MAZDA MOTOR CORP. (3/5/1998, NO. 97-8021)<BR></A><BR> The district court decided that Plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by federal law. Bonita was killed in a single car accident while driving a 1990 Mazda MX 6. Plaintiff filed this suit claiming that the seat belts in the MX 6 were defectively designed and that Mazda failed to warn consumers adequately of the risks of not utilizing all portions particularly the manual lap belt portion of the safety belt system.</P> <P> The safety belt system used in the Mazda MX 6 included a two point passive shoulder restraint (automatic shoulder belt) with a manual lap belt. This kind of restraint system was one of three options provided to car manufacturers by FMVSS 208. Plaintiff contends the design represented by this option was defective.</P> <P> Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that FMVSS 208 both expressly and impliedly preempts state law (including common law) claims and that no recovery can be had on a claim based on the use of a design permitted by the federal standards. The district court granted this motion and concluding that Plaintiff's failure to warn claim was dependent upon the design defect claim also dismissed Plaintiff's failure to warn claim.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>Discussion</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Whether Plaintiff's state law claims are preempted under the federal law is reviewed by this Court <EM>de novo. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0768117AF3AA6FDE88256E5A00707B75/$file/9830149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D03ABDFF7277C99F88256A610081EA0E/$file/9830149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413562.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Jones was indicted in DeKalb County. Jones was at home with his three month old daughter Jennifer. When no one else was around. When Jennifer was heard crying. Jennifer was dead. Jones was eventually arrested in connection with the death and during questioning offered the police a full confession. It was clear that Jones did not possess the 2 means to secure counsel on his own. He was at the time only 21 years old. He was ultimately granted court appointed counsel. The DeKalb County Public Defender was assigned. The specific defender appointed to represent Jones was Ms. Saari was a well qualified defense attorney. Saari was at the time fully capable of providing Jones with an effective defense. The P.D.'s case loads are overburdened. Denied Jones' request and the DeKalb County Public Defender was told to remain involved. 3 On that note Ms. Was not satisfied. Saari was not putting forth an effective defense. Attorney was surely justified. 4 On February 16. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is DENIED. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-4149.htm">02-4149 -- SKULL VALLEY BAND OF GOSHUTE INDIANS V. NIELSON -- 08/04/2004<BR></A><BR> Appeal the district court's ruling that the state's statutes regulating the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel are preempted by federal law. <u>See</u> <u>Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v. The Utah officials argue that the district court should not have reached the merits of this dispute because (1) the plaintiffs who challenge the statutes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961603.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even when the car is outside of New York. The court decided that the plaintiffs could not establish a genuine issue of fact as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle which caused the accident and thus summary judgment was appropriate as to both defendants. We find summary judgment as to Hanifi was also improper where the district court erred in not applying New York Section 388. Ebrahim Hanifi and his brother in law Gulagha Sultan are 2 residents of New York. The Wilkes were not insured by Motor Club. 1991 at about seven a.m. the plaintiffs were traveling south in the passing lane on Interstate 95 in a vehicle owned and driven by Robert Weil. John McGovern was driving south on Interstate 95 with his wife Elda McGovern in the passenger seat when they saw the accident and proceeded to follow the white car as it drove off. The accident was also witnessed by Colleen Young. Was observed by the McGoverns as they both trailed the white car. While Young said they were three white males. Sultan further verifies that the car was in his possession in New York on the day of the accident. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D8524371EDD4FDAB8825733A004BEA0C/$file/0655964.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider whether a class arbitration waiver in New Cingular Wireless Service Inc.'s standard contract for cellular phone services is unconscionable under California law. Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a holding that the waiver is unenforceable. We hold that the waiver is unconscionable. That the invalidation of the contract provision is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Alleging that he and similarly situated plaintiffs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/63E10539AB01C82D8825707600147873/$file/0435287.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We again are asked to decide whether a provider of payphone services may sue a long distance carrier to recover compensation that federal regulations. The circumstances have changed materially: since our decision in Greene. Which was made without the participation of the Federal Communications Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F4EE7E581556B19588256CD70051BA4D/$file/0110156.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Slip Op. page 19. Change: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE78AD3F93AA666688256C8600542FDF/$file/0110156.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest. Although there was such a conflict. Shwayder contends that the factual findings used to increase his base offense level for sentencing purposes should have been made by a jury rather than a judge. The law of this circuit is to the contrary. A. The Conspiracy BACKGROUND Keith Shwayder was president of Teletek. Was heavily in debt and in need of cash. Unlike We are simultaneously filing a memorandum disposition addressing matters concerning co defendants Orton and Swan in Nos. 01 10176 and 01 10186. 1 6 UNITED STATES v. Shwayder signed several documents filed with the SEC representing that these stock issues were for consulting services. The government's theory was that the consulting agreement with Feinstein. The loan to Shwayder were all sham transactions designed to pay Shwayder substantial sums to leave Teletek. Several investors were left with worthless stock or sold their Teletek stock at a significant loss. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before us en banc upon remand from the United States Supreme Court. Believing that it will be helpful in analyzing the issues presented. At issue were the so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/95-8966.man.html">RAYLE TECH, INC. V. DEKALB SWINE BREEDERS, INC. (1/26/1998, NO. 95-8966)<BR></A><BR> DEKALB is in the business of raising and selling swine breeding stock.</P> <P> From 1989 through 1994. PATHOGENS OR DISEASES MAY BE PRESENT AT TIME OF SALE OR MAY APPEAR LATER.</P> <P> The contracts recommend that the buyer have the swine tested at the buyer's expense prior to delivery. The contracts provide that replacement of the swine is the buyer's sole remedy. This contract cannot be amended except in a writing which refers to this contract and which is signed by both parties. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981790.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 1 the Yosts' action was therefore untenable. Christine Yost was injured in an automobile accident on June 23. Her car was struck by a vehicle operated by Dean Allen Miller. Miller was drunk at the time of the accident. Was quickly apprehended. The car Miller was driving (1) was owned by a resident of Pennsylvania. (2) was titled and regularly garaged in that state. (3) was insured by Travelers through a Pennsylvania 1 Johnson v. Travelers suggested that the liability policy limit was $15. Which in the case of West Virginia is $20. Who filed an answer asserting not only that Miller was without fault and that Mrs. Also that recovery was barred by such unlikely defenses as assumption of the risk. Lack of personal jurisdiction.2 Apparently someone on Travelers' side decided the answer went too far because an amended answer was later filed deleting the statute of limitations defense and admitting as fact that Miller had indeed been drunk at the time of the accident. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1870.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 14. This is an appeal BOWNES. The injunction was issued pursuant to the provisional remedy provision. Which provides: In any litigation in which there is directly or indirectly involved the termination of a dealer's contract or any act in prejudice of the relation established between the principal or grantor and the dealer. During the time the litigation is pending solution. In any case in which the provisional remedy herein provided is requested. There is no dispute as to the basic facts. It then held: Capens has also shown that his business will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted because Mr. Rossy Asencio will continue to sell the products in the areas wherein Capens had the exclusivity with the added competitive advantage for Asencio of freight charges assumed by ATAPCO. The above will obviously mean that Capens' business market will be significantly irreparably diminished. The harm that Capens will suffer most certainly outweighs ATAPCO's possible harm: the business area will remain unchanged (the Caribbean and Central and South America) and ATAPCO will continue receiving benefits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/95-8966.man.html">RAYLE TECH, INC. V. DEKALB SWINE BREEDERS, INC. (1/26/1998, NO. 95-8966)<BR></A><BR> DEKALB is in the business of raising and selling swine breeding stock.</P> <P> From 1989 through 1994. PATHOGENS OR DISEASES MAY BE PRESENT AT TIME OF SALE OR MAY APPEAR LATER.</P> <P> The contracts recommend that the buyer have the swine tested at the buyer's expense prior to delivery. The contracts provide that replacement of the swine is the buyer's sole remedy. This contract cannot be amended except in a writing which refers to this contract and which is signed by both parties. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/01-8006.htm">01-8006 -- STUART V. COLORADO INERSTATE GAS CO. -- 11/27/2001<BR></A><BR> The district court's jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/43EA7BD8DA0FBFC388256D3A007CA177/$file/0117078.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued that California's MTBE ban is preempted by the federal Clean Air Act. Which was granted by the district court. Though the MTBE ban is not expressly exempted from preemption by the Clean Air Act. The ban nonetheless is not preempted because it does not conflict with the goals and purposes of the Clean Air Act. DAVIS 7423 mentation and enforcement responsibilities under the Clean Air Act are shared between the federal government and state governments. While the states have the authority to devise implementation plans to meet those standards. One of the specific aims of the Clean Air Act is to reduce air pollution by reducing motor vehicle emissions. § 211 requires that gasoline sold in certain areas of the country have an oxygen content that equals or exceeds 2.0 percent by weight. Gasoline sold in certain areas have an oxygen content that equals or exceeds 2.7 percent by weight. MTBE and ethanol are the two most widely used oxygenates. Was originally scheduled to take effect on December 31. That the ban conflicts with the objectives of the Clean Air Act and is therefore preempted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/963262P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The investment advisor defendants are Reimer & Koger Associates. The accountant defendants are KPMG Peat Marwick and Robert W.L. The lawyer defendants are Blackwell. Is joined both in his capacity as a lawyer and as a Home Savings director. Michael Russell was a trustee of KPERS and a defendant in this case. The Home Savings defendants are the Estate of Frank Morgan. We held that KPERS's claims were not governed by a ten year Kansas controlled. KPERS's claims are barred if they would be untimely under the two and three year statutes provided by Kansas law. barred by the Kansas statutes. remanded to the district court to determine whether KPERS's claims were The district court held that KPERS's claims KPERS argues that the court should not Further. KPERS are time barred under Kansas law.7 have applied the Kansas statutes of limitation to KPERS's claims. Because its claims are exempt from all statutes of limitation. argues that. Even if the claims are subject to the statutes of limitation. KPERS is the pension fund for certain employees of the state of Kansas. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958966.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DEKALB is in the business of raising and selling swine breeding stock. Sitting by designation. 1 * The facts are taken from the joint stipulation of facts prepared by the parties. states that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-7116.htm">98-7116 -- WALLACE V. WARD -- 09/10/1999<BR></A><BR> Application of the new standards of review set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (ADEPA) would have an impermissible retroactive effect. (3) his trial counsel was ineffective due to a conflict of interest and his failure to investigate mitigating evidence. Who was aware of the McLaughlin murder. Petitioner was arrested near the scene a short while later. <p> Petitioner confessed to the two murders and pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree murder. The murders were especially heinous. Petitioner submits that application of AEDPA's new standards to state court proceedings completed before enactment or effectiveness of AEDPA is unconstitutionally retroactive. 1999) (unpublished order and judgment in capital case citing <u>Rogers</u> and holding that application of AEDPA to cases filed after its effective date is not impermissibly retroactive). <p> a state prisoner will be entitled to federal habeas corpus relief only if he can establish that a claim adjudicated by the state courts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1559.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> III</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F63C3857EBE8263588256E9F007CAC71/$file/0235587.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the Ashcroft Directive is unlawful and unenforceable because it violates the plain language of the CSA. The petitions for review are granted. I We have original jurisdiction over </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958966.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DEKALB is in the business of raising and selling swine breeding stock. The contracts recommend that the buyer have the swine tested at the buyer's expense prior to delivery. The contracts provide that replacement of the swine is the buyer's sole remedy. HEALTH OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 1 The facts are taken from the joint stipulation of facts prepared by the parties. 2 Each contract contains a merger clause. This contract cannot be amended except in a writing which refers to this contract and which is signed by both parties. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412420.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are small loans with interest rates averaging 400 500% APR due on the next payday. This appeal presents the question of whether the State of Georgia may regulate a narrow segment of agency agreements between in state payday stores and out of state banks or whether the Georgia Act in issue is preempted by § 27(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/99-5214a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were H. On the brief were David W. Filed suit prior to termination of that conflict seeking a declaratory judgment that the President's use of American forces against Yugoslavia was unlawful un der both the War Powers Clause of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE3MDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1705-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> J.) held that Michigan law shields pharmaceutical companies from products liability claims unless there is. The power of states to govern in this field is considerable and undisputed. 756 (1985) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE3MDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1705-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> J.) held that Michigan law shields pharmaceutical companies from products liability claims unless there is. The power of states to govern in this field is considerable and undisputed. 756 (1985) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-1040a.html">ALLEGHENY LUDLUM COR V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982140.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1996 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-1550.htm">99-1550 -- DOERING V. COPPER MOUNTAIN INC. -- 07/31/2001<BR></A><BR> INTRODUCTION</strong> <p> Richie and Kimberly Doering were severely injured in a sledding collision with snow grooming equipment at Copper Mountain Resort. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Copper Mountain after finding that their negligence claims were barred by the Ski Safety Act. <p> The Doerings<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5393a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Paul D. Samp were on the brief of amici curiae Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation in support of appellants. 2 Jay Alan Sekulow and James M. Jr. were on the brief of amicus curiae The American Center for Law & Justice supporting appellants. With them on the briefs were Benjamin S. Vladeck were on the brief of amici curiae of fifteen law professors in support of appellee. Berz was on the brief for amici curiae Louise Doswald Beck. Paust was on the brief for amicus curiae International Law and National Security Law Professors in support of appellee. Was on the brief for amici curiae Jenny S. Moltenbrey was on the brief for amici curiae 305 United Kingdom and European Parliamentarians in support of appellee. Thompson was on the brief for amici curiae Eleven Legal Scholars in support of appellee. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Military Attorneys Detailed to Represent Ali Hamza Ahmad Sulayman Al Bahlul in support of appellee. 3 Kurt J. Carter were on the brief for amici curiae Military Law Practitioners and Academicians Kevin J. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/96-4198.htm">96-4198 -- ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS INC. V. SFR INC. -- 01/28/1999<BR></A><BR> Seeking declaratory relief against EDI that he was entitled to a one third share of a promissory note issued by SFR and naming EDI as the payee. The case was tried to the court and judgment was entered on October 4. Have timely appealed the judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI4MDktcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2809-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Ronald Wells is an inmate in the Green Haven Correctional Facility. Magistrate Judge) granted Wells's petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his appointed counsel abandoned at trial a theory that someone else Richie Roman committed the crime. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1682p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are faced with an apparent conflict between </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314122.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case involves two airline pilots who have been charged with violating Florida criminal statutes prohibiting the operation of an aircraft while intoxicated. They assert that the Florida statutes at issue are preempted by federal law. Because we find the preemption claims in the instant case are not facially conclusive. We hold that the district court should have abstained. The pilots were instructed to taxi back to the gate. Whereupon they were interviewed by MiamiDade police officers. Approximately two hours later were taken to a MiamiDade police station where the officers administered breathalyser tests to both appellees. The breathalyser results were 0.084 and 0.081 breath alcohol level for Hughes and 0.091 and 0.090 breath alcohol level for Cloyd. Appellees were subsequently charged with operating an aircraft while intoxicated. Appellees claimed that federal law preempted the Florida state statutes under which appellees were being prosecuted and therefore the district court should. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113864.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He claimed that his rights under the First Amendment's Speech Clause were violated when Allred and Harland punished him for silently raising his fist during the daily flag salute instead of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with the rest of his class. He further claims that his Establishment Clause rights were violated by Allred's daily </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2260.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Was on brief. BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1753.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gray LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. Or reasonably should have known. That the tests were not reasonable and necessary for diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury of Medicare beneficiaries. Are the exclusive avenue for recovery by the United States of Medicare overpayments. The question presented is whether the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the Medicare Act explicitly or implicitly repeals the grant of federal court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 or displaces the underlying common law causes of action over which § 1345 gives federal courts jurisdiction. Medicare is a federally subsidized health insurance program for the elderly and certain disabled individuals. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1408.html">INTERNATIONAL NUTRITION V. INTERNATIONAL NUTRITION<BR></A><BR> Argued for<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7DFBFA331758B76888256D3C0073F2F1/$file/0299000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Lawrence Bittaker was convicted in California state court of multiple murders and was sentenced to death. The question presented to us is the scope of the habeas petitioner's waiver: Does it extend only to litigation of the federal habeas petition. Or is the attorney client privilege waived for all time and all purposes including the possible retrial of the petitioner. The parties will immediately advise the court of any future rulings in Osband v. ER at 8 9 (underscored portion in handscript). 2 The parties spill much ink on the subsidiary question whether the district court would have had discretion to enter the protective order even if the disclosed materials lost their privilege for all purposes. WOODFORD 7641 Jurisdiction The challenged order is not a final judgment. Yet the parties agree that it is reviewable as a collateral order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The matter is closer than the concurrence of the parties would suggest. The protective order is. At that time we will know much more about the practical effect of the order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2079.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Holt</SPAN> was on brief. Emblematic of unsettled political conditions that have plagued the Middle East for many years. On the ground that they were entitled to a binding determination of sovereign immunity (including appellate review of any unfavorable decision) before being forced to bear the burdens of litigation.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CD4599EF9CBD696488256C3000547E65/$file/0155002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background We review de novo a district court's determination that it does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate. The motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff appellant Dole U.S. is incorporated under the laws of Hawaii and has its headquarters and principal place of business in California. Defendant appellee Watts is a citizen of the United Kingdom and lives in France. WATTS 13667 Watts was an employee of Dole Europe. Which is based and registered in Belgium. Was an employee of Dole Packaged Foods ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-8089.htm">01-8089 -- R & G ELECTRIC INC. V. DEVON ENERGY CORP. -- 12/17/2002<BR></A><BR> The Parties and the Master Service Agreement</em> <p> Devon is an Oklahoma corporation in the business of producing oil and gas. Troubleshooting services in the Spotted Horse field. <p> Two provisions of the Master Service Agreement are relevant in this case. Any customer for whom operator is performing services. The nearest well was approximately 600 feet from the CDP. The farthest was approximately one mile away. <p> On June 5. Devon knew that the Wolff CDP 12 6 was operating without methane gas detectors. Were working on the pump. Asserting that his injuries were caused by Devon's negligence. An anti indemnity statute. <p> The parties stipulated that there was no dispute as to material facts and submitted cross motions for summary judgment. G performed under the Master Service Agreement were outside the scope of the Wyoming anti indemnity statute and that application of Oklahoma law did not. Summary judgment is appropriate if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1385.html">TRANSMATIC V. GULTON INDUSTRIES<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were Andrew M. Interest from the district court's initial judgment date to the remand judgment date should have been awarded at the postjudgment interest rate. The district court held that claim 1 was not proved to be invalid and was not literally infringed. That Gulton was liable for damages of approximately three million dollars in lost profits. Why certain expenses were fixed. The prejudgment interest rate awarded by the district court was several percentage points higher than the statutory postjudgment interest rate provided for under 28 U.S.C. 1961. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1) (1994).<p> <p> DISCUSSION<p> Gulton contends that Transmatic should have been awarded postjudgment interest for the interim period. Gulton asserts that the determination of the dividing line between pre and postjudgment interest is a procedural matter that requires us to follow Sixth Circuit law. The time when damages were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May18/02-31068-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motion is GRANTED. The previous order of dismissal is withdrawn. The following opinion is entered in lieu thereof. The owner of the ship on which he was injured. Appellants removed to federal court on the grounds that their dispute with Dahiya was subject to an arbitration agreement governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/993513.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION Before us is an appeal from the order of the District Court granting a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act (WDA or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2402.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whiting</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972512P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The tug was towing the barge from Carteret. Both the tug and barge were owned by Central Barge & Boat Co. It was aground and leaking gasoline through a gash in its hull. The Maya eventually lost control and was stranded with the barge. Both the tug and barge were eventually freed and the cargo of gasoline was transferred to another barge for completion of the voyage. 875 F.2d at 1353. Late a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 21 Both Apex Towing and Apex Oil were insured for this voyage by Plaintiff/Appellant American Home Assurance Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0047n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted Williams' habeas corpus petition on the grounds that he was denied his constitutional right to conflict free representation and that his waiver of that right was not voluntary or intelligent. Who was seated by himself on a couch. Which was later found to contain 83.64 grams of powder containing cocaine. Officer Tyrone Spencer was outside the house providing security during the execution of the search warrant. That bag was later found to contain 22.43 grams of a substance containing cocaine. He also testified that he was asleep upstairs when police executed the search warrant. That the co Defendant was asleep when the police arrived. The co Defendant testified that he was in bed when police arrived and that he did not throw anything out of the window. He further stated that there were no guns in the house. 000 found on the mantle in the house was for the plumber. That there were not zip lock bags. Petitioner and the co Defendant were tried jointly in Michigan state court. They were both represented by Attorney Capers Harper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/03-6112.htm">03-6112 -- FELIX V. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. -- 10/26/2004<BR></A><BR> Which was denied by the district court on the basis of ERISA complete preemption. We conclude that Plaintiffs' state law fraud claims are not completely preempted by ERISA. Lucent entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC0F639C1A2F4FC38825734C0058764C/$file/0555224.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He began work as a senior executive with a company that was negotiating with a production executive of one of the parties to the arbitration to finance and co produce an important motion picture. We hold that vacatur by the district court for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2301.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An amended opinion is attached hereto. We have consolidated these cases for disposition on appeal. The New Mexico Name maintains that the English judgment stemmed from an action that is repugnant to New Mexico's public policy as the judgment: (a) violates New Mexico's securities laws. (b) is based on unconscionable contracts. (e) is based on illusory contacts. Because the English system of jurisprudence is incompatible with American standards of due process. Two Utah Names also contend that the district court's approval of the English post judgment interest of eight percent per annum was incorrect. We also hold that the Lloyd's judgments are not repugnant to New Mexico's public policy. We hold that the parties in this case are diverse. I. BACKGROUND Numerous courts have summarized the basic facts applicable to the underlying litigation. These facts are not in dispute. Lloyd's is not an insurer. Rather is the regulator of an insurance market located in London. Names are passive investors in the sophisticated scheme. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DB712C04C85EE8EA8825702700824056/$file/0415919.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that she was denied due process of law at a critical stage in her criminal trial with harm to her ability to defend herself in a capital case. Attempted a carjacking in the course of which the driver of the car was shot. She was taken into custody and charged with attempted robbery. At the time she was represented by Patrick Hutchinson. Hutchinson and Miller were replaced by Melvin Sacks. The trial date was continued to July 18. HENRY 7455 the trial date was changed again to March 2. Judge Tansil stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6112.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was denied by the district court on the basis of ERISA complete preemption. We conclude that Plaintiffs' state law fraud claims are not completely <hr> preempted by ERISA. Lucent entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0010p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue in this case are the duties of disinterest and disclosure of an examiner appointed to facilitate a reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Which was unable to meet obligations on $1.2 billion in debt and whose Nos. 02 6212/ 6213/6338/6340/ 6341/6344/6347 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Owensboro. As did the United States Trustee which is responsible for appointing bankruptcy examiners and trustees. The petition represented the largest bankruptcy case ever filed in Kentucky and at the time was one of the largest bankruptcy cases in the country. Schilling signed a document entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1802.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mahoney & Miller were on brief for appellant. LLP were on brief for appellee. Three hundred of which are banks and other financial institutions. VSI is offered by Ohio. It provided that should a conflict arise as to which agent was entitled to commissions on a particular policy. The amount of unearned premiums mentioned is inaccurate. The new figure is being calculated. Grondin testified that he did not have a copy of the letter Donley showed him. The letter is absent from the record. 6 6 had no problem letting Shawmut have a portion of the commissions. That is. He simply reminded Juredine that he was not to negotiate with Shawmut directly without Miniter's involvement. Grondin and his supervisor informed Donley by telephone that Shawmut was terminating its relationship with Miniter. Summary judgment is appropriate in the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. When the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material when it has the potential to affect the outcome of the suit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAxODItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0182-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Some were passengers on the hijacked airplanes. Others were present at the World Trade Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue before us in this appeal is whether Canon 5 of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. Were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in maintaining the independence and impartiality of Minnesota's judiciary. Were not impermissibly vague. I. The Minnesota Constitution provides that judges </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971808.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This case is a study in the tensions that can beset the franchisorfranchisee relationship. Defendants maintain that the suit was erroneously certified as a class action and challenge several other legal rulings by the district court. Deprived defendants of a fair trial on the precise issue of contractual breach that is properly the focus of this case. I. The plaintiff class consisted of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051222p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Died before it was released. 2 1 Attorney for Appellant Evan C. The ministerial exception was created to protect church autonomy and avoid entangling government in religious affairs. Where otherwise illegal discrimination is based on religious belief. Or the internal regulations of a church is simply the exercise of intolerance. Demoted her because she is a woman and because 5 she opposed sexual harassment by Gannon officials. A motion such as Gannon's is more properly dealt with under Rule 12(b)(6). We will therefore reverse the dismissal of her Title VII claims. What we deal with here is functionally a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. 6 2 religion clauses removed jurisdiction. We cannot conclude at this stage of litigation that these claims will require an examination of matters of faith. They are not barred by the religion clauses.3 I. The facts set forth below are drawn from Petruska's First Amended Complaint. Gannon University is a Catholic diocesan college located in Erie. Petruska was appointed permanent chaplain on July 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/012455p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Merritt argues that the District Court erred by not tolling the statute of limitations for his federal habeas corpus petition during the period of time he was pursuing post conviction relief in state court under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act. Who sought but was denied application of a statutory exception to the PCRA's time bar. 3 is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/001446.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Antico asserts that he is entitled to a new trial for three reasons: (1) the District Court's failure to instruct the jury. The Government must prove that at least two of the sixteen racketeering acts charged were connected by a common scheme. That at least two of the racketeering acts were committed within ten years of each other (one of which occurred within the five year statute of limitations). 3 for other reasons stated in this opinion. In the following recitation of the schemes on which Antico's conviction was based. L&I's function is to administer and enforce the City's code requirements. Officials of L&I are empowered to issue zoning and use permits and licenses according to a first come first served policy. The extortion and wire fraud schemes that Antico concocted while he was a public official at L&I and after he left its employ are detailed below. The zoning issue that led to the store closing on December 22 was still pending and they were concerned that Antico would use his position with L&I to keep the business closed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/93-5187.opa.html">FIORETTI V. MASS. GENERAL LIFE INS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Fioretti v. Senior District Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from a final judgment entered in this diversity action. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/93-5187.opa.html">FIORETTI V. MASS. GENERAL LIFE INS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Fioretti v. Senior District Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from a final judgment entered in this diversity action. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI1ODJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2582_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was the basis for the August 5. Although the ineffective assistance claim is of arguable concern. We conclude that it is ultimately without merit and that the New York courts did not make </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723ord.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BY THE COURT: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J L EDMONDSON Chief Judge 2 BIRCH. Specially Concurring in the Denial of Rehearing En Banc: The dissents to the denial of rehearing en banc both agree that the Equal Protection Clause challenge to the Florida statute at issue should have been embraced by our court. 4 the vociferous dissent by my sister jurist (for whom I have great respect and affection). The Florida adoption statute at issue is constitutionally flawed. The Lofton panel's analysis and approach in this case was premised on a fundamental principal or philosophy. When he observed: Courts are not representative bodies. They are not designed to be a good reflex of a democratic society. ... Their essential quality is detachment. History teaches that the independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the passions of the day and assume primary responsibility in choosing between competing political. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0563n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is from the granting of injunctive The Honorable James L. I. Curtis 1000 sells custom printed products through sales representatives who are assigned to specific geographic territories. Are not limited to a geographic area. ASB is not in the manufacturing business. Martin and Bean were both hired by Curtis 1000 in 1984 as sales representatives and were assigned different sales territories in Central Tennessee. Martin and Bean were both responsible for building their own client bases. Bean's agreement was executed on June 22. Specified that it was governed by the laws of Delaware. [T]he Sales Representative will acquire by reason of his employment valuable information concerning the Company's accounts. Any and all such information other than known generally by persons not affiliated or formerly affiliated with the Company is to be treated by the Sales Representative as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0419p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For the following reasons we REVERSE the district court's judgment that the SinglePetition Rule is constitutionally valid and conclude that the Single Petition Rule is severable from the remainder of the statute. We AFFIRM the district court's judgment that the In Person Rule is constitutionally valid and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Two of which are at issue in this case: the Single Petition Rule and the InPerson Rule. Code § 2919.121(B)(1) (2005).1 The statutory amendment permits a minor woman to petition a juvenile court for a judicial bypass of parental consent if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E9C571F39150FF1B88256C290056416C/$file/0057222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over Luce Forward's timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. His employment was at will. Will be heard before a retired State or Federal judge in the county containing the firm office in which you were last employed. The law of the State in which you last worked will apply. That he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DB9077B4175DA40088256AE6007F48B3/$file/9916952.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Under which receipt is presumed upon proof of mailing. Whether the federal and state common law mailbox rule applies to an ERISA plan's benefit decisions is a question of first impression in this Circuit. As Schikore was appealing a denial of benefits under her retirement plan. Over which we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1291 (stating that courts of appeals have jurisdiction solely over appeals from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B4E4FCBCAFCB268888256E5A00707D0E/$file/9916952.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Under which receipt is presumed upon proof of mailing. Whether the federal and state common law mailbox rule applies to an ERISA plan's benefit decisions is a question of first impression in this Circuit. As Schikore was appealing a denial of benefits under her retirement plan. Over which we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1291 (stating that courts of appeals have jurisdiction solely over appeals from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054406p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lindsey alleged that the pipe layer was defective in that it did not have a rollover protective structure. Even if preemption is at issue. He was operating a sideboom pipe laying tractor manufactured by Caterpillar. The tractors were traveling in reverse gear. Which was the lower of the two. The Caterpillar tractor was not equipped with a rollover protective structure. Which could have prevented Charles from being crushed. Opined that it was technologically and economically feasible for the Caterpillar pipe layer to have been equipped with a rollover protective structure. This opinion was based in part on the fact that Caterpillar had designed a rollover protective structure for the tractor model at issue. Was providing such structures on its sideboom pipe layers at the time Charles Lindsey's pipe layer was manufactured. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration Area Director recognized that pipe layers are exempted from the requirement for rollover protective structures. Caterpillar moved for summary judgment on the product liability claim on the basis that Lindsey's cause of action for defective design was preempted by the Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7210a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DeMarcay III argued the cause for appellant Gene Taylor.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200208/00-7210a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was George J. With him on the brief was Jan W. Circuit Judge: After publishing an offer to pay one million dollars to the first person who could demonstrate that a statement about Republican plans for Medicare spend ing was false. Two of those claims are now before this court. The ad is reproduced at the end of this opinion. Prominently fea tured at the top of the ad is a photograph of Haley Barbour. The fact is Republicans are increasing Medicare spend ing by more than half. Haley </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B3CEEC82D3324EE882571E7007F8397/$file/9899003.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and found Comer to have competently and voluntarily waived his habeas appeal right. We hold that Comer's sentence was invalid and hereby grant the writ of habeas corpus based on the violation of Comer's due process rights that occurred when he was sentenced to death while nearly naked. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Crime The facts of this case are deeply disturbing. It is unclear whether Pritchard died immediately from the The facts related to Comer's crime. Conviction are largely taken from the Supreme Court of Arizona's 1990 decision in this case. Remembering from their earlier encounter that Jones and Smith were in possession of a small quantity of marijuana. Jones managed to escape while Comer was fixing his truck. She was later picked up by a passing motorist and taken to the sheriff's home. SCHRIRO Charges Comer and Willis were charged in Maricopa County with the first degree murder and armed robbery of Pritchard and the armed robbery. Comer was charged with two counts of sexual abuse and three counts of sexual assault of Jones. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/05/001720P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that Bridgette was injured by a portable gasoline container distributed by Wal Mart. Which he was using in December 1993 to burn tree stumps in his front yard. Hughes was pouring diesel fuel from the container onto the stumps when the fuel contained within the container suddenly ignited and exploded. Fuel and flames spewed some forty feet to where six year old Bridgette was playing. Were residents of Louisiana at the time of the accident. They seek to recover for Bridgette's injuries under various theories but allege in particular that the container was defective because it was not equipped with an inexpensive safety device that would have either prevented ignition of the fuel or would have vented the container's pressure upon ignition of the fuel therein. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 2 1 distributor (as opposed to the manufacturer of the product) is not liable unless it knew or should have known the product was defective yet failed to warn of the defect. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-6426.htm">01-6426 -- U.S. V. HUNT -- 04/03/2003<BR></A><BR> Hunt was general manager of the Orienta Cooperative Association. Hunt after unexpectedly learning Orienta's bank account was overdrawn. Hunt was diverting Orienta's funds into a personal account and then investing in the commodities market for his own benefit. <p> A little over a year after Mr. Ineffective assistance of counsel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1468.html">LAITRAM CORP. V. NEC CORPORATION<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991319.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reverse this decision and uphold the constitutionality of Regulation 61 12 because (1) the Regulation serves a valid state interest and is little more than a codification of national medical and abortion association recommendations designed to ensure the health and appropriate care of women seeking abortions. Are even yet modest and have not been shown to burden the ability of a woman to make the decision to have an abortion. (4) abortion clinics may rationally be regulated as a class while other clinics or medical practices are not. South Carolina regulated clinics at which secondtrimester abortions were performed. The South Carolina legislature amended its statute to require any </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0028p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a case where two brothers. Were poorly served by one attorney. Was obviously led astray by his older brother. This is one of the unusual cases where the court should have stepped in to ensure an adequate legal defense for Stanley Hall. Rex Hall claims his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the district court denied his request for a continuance. Stanley Hall fled on foot but was apprehended shortly thereafter. Which was leased by Rex Hall. From the beginning of the proceedings both Rex and Stanley Hall were represented by David Van Horn. The court conducted a hearing the day before trial at which time Van Horn stated that if he was not allowed to represent both Halls. The record remains cloudy as to whether Stanley understood the full ramifications of what he was doing. Stanley Hall stated that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1919.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> James Hamilton</U> were on brief. Bowie</U> were on brief. Was brought against the company whose stack was involved. Its parent corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1422.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D85DBFEC9FD4BC788256E5A00707D3D/$file/9735191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972512A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants are ten former obstetrical patients at MUSC whose urine was tested pursuant to the Policy. We will refer to the defendants collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C2CBD69E6E2C18388256AFD001790CB/$file/9735191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/801F57B52029863A88257020006E31AD/$file/0216019.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Prohibits United States citizens from investing in and trading with Iran.1 The question we face is whether an American citizen's guarantees of payments that furthered a trade agreement with an Iranian company are covered by the Executive Order and. Whether the guarantees are unenforceable as a result. We conclude that the guarantees were illegal under the Executive Order and. 059 is appended to this opinion in its entirety. All quotations in this account are from the complaint or the guarantees. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043609p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that evidence of pre petition conduct in this case by a law firm is relevant to a review of a debtor's application to retain the firm as special insurance counsel. We conclude that the bankruptcy judge should not have granted the application here. The firm had acted as counsel for the debtor pre petition in negotiating settlement arrangements with asbestos injury claimants represented by attorneys who were co counsel with the firm in insurance matters for those same claimants. Congoleum filed a declaratory judgment in the Superior Court of New Jersey in 2001 against a number of excess carriers.1 The complaint was filed by the law firm of Dughi. We take judicial notice of the state court proceedings insofar as they are relevant here. 205 (3d Cir. 1995) (concluding that judicial notice can be taken of certain facts such as that a document was filed. Garnering support from a large number of claimants is crucial to the success of a plan. A unique feature of asbestos personal injury litigation is the fact that a small group of law firms represents hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4071.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These matters are before the court on the petition for rehearing filed on behalf of Garfield and Kane Counties. We have determined to amend the original panel opinion on page 86. A copy of the amended opinion is attached to this order. The petition for panel rehearing is otherwise denied in all respects. Most of the transportation routes of the West were established under its authority. R.S. 2477 rights of way were an integral part of the congressional pro development lands policy. The statute thus had the effect of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034433p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 an association of law Joining FAIR in its preliminary injunction motion and in this appeal are: the Society for Law Teachers. We hold that FAIR has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claims and that it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Background Facts 2 and Procedural Posture Law Schools' Nondiscrimination Policies Law schools have long maintained formal policies of nondiscrimination that withhold career placement services from employers who exclude employees and applicants based on such factors as race. The facts on appeal are not in dispute. Supp. 2d at 277. 7 2 virtually every law school now has a comprehensive policy like the following: [The] School of Law is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all students and graduates. A servicemember is separated from the military if it is found that he or she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/053093P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. In 1993 South Dakota enacted a law providing that no abortion can be performed without the patient's voluntary and informed consent unless it is impossible to obtain such consent due to a medical emergency. The patient's consent will be informed only if certain information has been given to her at least 24 hours before an abortion procedure. The information required by the 1993 law includes the name of the physician who will perform the abortion. The probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus she is carrying. The patient must also have been told that medical assistance benefits may be available. All of whom were granted leave to intervene after this appeal was filed. 22 1 fetuses at various gestational ages. A provider's failure to comply with the state's informed consent requirements is a class 2 misdemeanor. In 2005 South Dakota enacted House Bill 1166 (the Act) which is the subject of this action. The disclosures required under the new law are contained in § 7 of the Act. The doctor's written statement provided 2 hours before an abortion must inform the patient: (b) That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1799.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gallogly</SPAN> with whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1690.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 943 (5th Cir. 1990) (breach of implied covenant claims are breach of contract claims). Were on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellee. (4) by marketing what were essentially </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQwNjUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4065-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings. * The Honorable David G. Was hired by Conrail as a brakeman in 1987 and was promoted to conductor in early 1988. He was certified as a locomotive engineer in March 1989 and continued working for Conrail in that capacity until February 1998. Which Wall maintains was in violation of Federal Railroad Administration regulations and the company's collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200517184.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Federated challenges the district court's determination that Federated's subrogation claim is barred. Thomas Smith was seriously injured when he contacted a downed power line owned by Washington The Honorable Anne C. Is Moody's successor in interest by virtue of a merger that occurred in 1998. Federated was substituted. Moody and MasTec took the position that because Federated is a member of FIGA. Is both a FIGA member and insolvent. Section 631.54(3)(b) provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/033388p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F56F16621A47207188256BF3007FF649/$file/0035458.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This civil rights case turns upon whether Gregory Lawson was constructively discharged from his employment as a cadet in the Washington State Patrol Academy's 82nd Trooper Basic Training Class. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Lawson was hired by the WSP in 1998. Lawson was issued a manual entitled Procedures. The Manual states that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514253.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The first time that Mark Dean Schwab sexually assaulted a young male was in the fall of 1986. When Schwab was seventeen years old. His victim was a younger. Which is all we will use. Was Warren. As Warren was again walking to school. Was a thirteen year old boy (between 5'3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/99-11287.man.html">PEGG V. UNITED STATES (6/12/2001, NO. 99-11287)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/99-11287.man.html">PEGG V. UNITED STATES (6/12/2001, NO. 99-11287)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9612A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 5 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/97-6179.htm">97-6179 -- CASTRO V. WARD -- 03/02/1998<BR></A><BR> Is withdrawn. The court's corrected opinion is filed herewith. Castro was arrested for the armed robbery and felony murder of Rhonda Pappan in Ponca City. He was placed in the Kay County jail. Castro was convicted and sentenced to death in this case. The basic facts of the crime are the following: Mr. Castro with the Cox murder was filed in Noble County. Castro was found guilty in Kay County of the armed robbery and felony murder of Ms. Castro was arraigned on the murder and theft charges involving Ms. The statutory aggravator supporting the death sentence was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-6179.htm">97-6179 -- CASTRO V. WARD -- 02/18/1998<BR></A><BR> Castro was arrested for the armed robbery and felony murder of Rhonda Pappan in Ponca City. He was placed in the Kay County jail. Castro was convicted and sentenced to death in this case. The basic facts of the crime are the following: Mr. Castro with the Cox murder was filed in Noble County. Castro was found guilty in Kay County of the armed robbery and felony murder of Ms. Castro was arraigned on the murder and theft charges involving Ms. The statutory aggravator supporting the death sentence was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3BB2B79B2BAD08688256BFA005882C4/$file/0035962.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal challenges Washington law that denies a statefunded </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7171a.html">EKSTROM RICHARD D. V. VALUE HLTH INC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0158p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose actions were transferred to. I. This litigation was occasioned by the diet drug Meridia. The rights to Meridia were purchased by Knoll Pharmaceuticals. The plaintiffs claimed to have incurred various injuries e.g. Death and claimed that Meridia is ineffective. The plaintiffs also claimed that they were at increased risk of developing a future injury. Some of the claims were filed originally in federal court. Which is an Illinois company. Nearly 100 Meridia actions from 18 states1 were consolidated and assigned to the Honorable James S. Schwartz was not permitted to testify as to the physiological effects of high blood pressure. These states are: Alabama. No plaintiff was actually from Illinois. Where Abbott Labs is incorporated. 616 (6th Cir. 2002) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0246p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are Sabbath observant Orthodox Jews. It is undisputed that they were not independent contractors. The Goldmeiers are also Sabbath observant Orthodox Jews and as such followed a religious prohibition against working from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. It did require the presence of a licensed insurance agent at all times and the Goldmeiers were the only such agents in their office. Allstate employees were advised that failure to comply with the new policy could lead to discipline. When the Goldmeiers' children were young. At this time outside help was not acceptable to the Goldmeiers for multiple reasons. The Goldmeiers would have been responsible for the performance of the office even in their absence and they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0321p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 all commissioners of insurance or Mike Pickens is a defendant on ly in the action brought by First Tennessee Bank. Therefore is a party only to Appeal No. 03 5521. 1 The Honorable Gordon J. Who were sued in their official capacity as receivers for various insolvent insurance companies (collectively. Because it lacked jurisdiction or because it should have declined jurisdiction in its discretion. While at the same time controlling the unregistered brokerage that was supposedly investing the large cash reserves that insurance companies typically have on hand. He was funneling the money to overseas bank accounts. Frankel was the subject of a four month. Bank accounts used in Frankel's money laundering scheme were held by the insurance companies at both AmSouth. The Receivers argue that the Banks were negligent in not realizing the massive fraud that those accounts were being used to commit. The Receivers concluded they might have claims against AmSouth. That tolling agreement was extended six times. Negotiations were ongoing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3077enbanc.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Theodore B. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Donald E. With him on the brief were Jeffrey G. Of counsel on the brief were Ronald L. With him on the brief were Martha B. Because the VEOA is subject to equitable tolling and Kirkendall is entitled to a hearing on his USERRA claim. Was chosen to fill the position. All of which were denied. The board has no authority to decide whether DoL should have waived the 60 day deadline. The board affirmed the AJ's decision that the VEOA claim was precluded for failure to timely file. The board held that Kirkendall's assertion that he was not selected based on his status as a disabled veteran was cognizable. That Kirkendall had offered no proof that his veteran status was a substantial or motivating factor in his nonselection. Review was denied. Cir. 2006) (per curiam order). 05 3077 3 The order granting en banc review asked the parties to brief three issues: (1) Is the 15 day period for filing appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(1)(B) subject to equitable tolling? (2) Is the 60 day period for filing a claim with the Secretary of Labor set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(2)(A) subject to equitable tolling? (3) Are all veterans who allege a USERRA violation entitled to a hearing under 5 U.S.C. § 7701? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2B8C467ADCD0F45988256E7B00832FF0/$file/0355166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question is whether these two interests conflict here. We are constrained to conclude that California acting as a regulator. We hold that the California statute as written is preempted by the NLRA under Lodge 76. Gov't Code §§ 16645 49 are hereinafter cited as. LOCKYER 5173 It is the policy of the state not to interfere with an employee's choice about whether to join or to be represented by a labor union. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to prohibit an employer from using state funds and facilities for the purpose of influencing employees to support or oppose unionization and to prohibit an employer from seeking to influence employees to support or oppose unionization while those employees are performing work on a state contract. § 16645. Two provisions of the California statute are at issue on this appeal sections 16645.2 and 16645.7. Section 16645.2(a) bars private employers who are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec96/96-6513.ma2.html">HUNTER V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hunter v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> We heard these cases en banc to decide whether a district court judge is authorized to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611374.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We review whether Lynd was deprived of his right to assistance from necessary and competent experts at his competency trial and at both phases of his capital trial. We review whether Lynd was denied effective assistance of counsel because: (1) his retained counsel unreasonably advised him not to cooperate with a state mental health evaluation. I. Background The facts of the crime are described by the Georgia Supreme Court as follows: Lynd and the victim [Virginia </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/98-7006a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Robert M.N. Circuit Judge: The question on appeal is whether federal law pre empts a defective design lawsuit against the American Honda Motor Company for damages arising from injuries suffered by Alexis Geier1 when her 1987 Honda Accord. Which did not have an airbag. The district court granted summary judgment for Honda on the ground that the lawsuit was pre empted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Concluding that Geier's lawsuit is impliedly pre empted. Courts have identified three ways in which a federal statute or regulation can pre empt state law: by express pre emption. The Supreme Court has identified two presumptions 1 Appellants are Alexis Geier. For ease of reference we refer to appellants as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec96/96-6513.ma2.html">HUNTER V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hunter v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> We heard these cases en banc to decide whether a district court judge is authorized to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept97/96-6211.wpd.html">CACY V. CITY OF CHICKASHA<BR></A><BR> The individual defendants were also employees of the City of Chickasha: Larry Shelton was the City Manager. Dany Sterling was the Chief of Police. Huggins were both police captains. Cacy that he was investigating the alleged misconduct of a police officer. Cacy would be interviewed as (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The officers were taking a break in the local Best Western coffee shop between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. They were alone with Ms. McCaskill was also joking with Ms. Pointing out that her pink bra strap was exposed. McCaskill asked whether it was pink all over. That's all he kept saying was that this information could be helpful to you. That was it. The substance of that conversation is as follows: Callahan: So how do we convince [Ms. Manuel was present in the coffee shop as follows: She just stopped by there. I would like to have a cup of coffee. He's so full of bullshit it is unbelievable. Callahan: Now this is old man Cacy we're talking about. He goes well is this like a see through bra or something. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1497.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. </SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015305.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are not subject to the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act. The question of whether the United States' claims brought pursuant to PSRPA are subject to the Limitation Act is one of first impression. If the limitation is granted. The vessel owner subsequently is found liable. It was entitled to all damages due to injuries to resources in the National Park as a result of the grounding.3 The relevant provisions of the PSRPA include: 16 U.S.C. § 19jj 1(a): [A]ny person who destroys. Or injures any park system resource is liable to the United States for the response costs and damages resulting from such destruction. As limitation is based on the post accident value of the vessel and its freight. Especially in cases in which the vessel sinks or the freight is lost. Or injury to the same extent as a person is liable under subsection (a) of this section. 16 U.S.C. § 19jj(c): </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992533.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 1 counsel's firm name is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002a/014101.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (said names being fictitious as their identities are presently unknown). (said names being fictitious as their identities are presently unknown) Christian Joseph Gibbs. This minimum one year time bar is tolled. The Gibbses and Carnival disagree as to when (or whether) Suzanne Gibbs was appointed guardian ad litem of Christian in order to serve as his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/97-5186.htm">97-5186 -- BANCOKLAHOMA MORTGAGE CORP. V. CAPITAL TITLE CO. INC. -- 10/18/1999<BR></A><BR> District Judge. <p> <center> </center> <p> <strong><center>Background</center> </strong> <p> Bancoklahoma Mortgage Corp. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2030p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She claims that the enhancement was improper because she was denied effective assistance of counsel in the Philippines. We will affirm. A male named Lazarus Iwuchukwu ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/09A4D16644F713028825727C0057465C/$file/0535170.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 000 of the punitive damages were allocated to Oregon's Criminal Injuries Com ENGQUIST v. Contending that the constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. Contending that a jury verdict from a coworker's similar trial in state court should have been given preclusive effect. Or that it should have been admitted into evidence. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and cross appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that Engquist's constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Engquist was hired in 1992 as an international food standards specialist for the Export Service Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/94-6650.opa.html">MOREWITZ V. WEST OF ENG. SHIP OWNERS MUTUAL PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY ASSOC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morewitz v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D38C1EE1C92A9DF88256B57007FDF49/$file/9799017.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pizzuto was sentenced to death. Because Pizzuto filed his habeas petition before the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) was enacted. Regardless of when the petition was filed. Pizzuto needs a certificate of appealability (COA) rather than a certificate of probable cause (CPC) for this court to have jurisdiction. As Pizzuto could not have known that a COA rather than a CPC was required. Berta Herndon and her adult nephew Delbert Herndon were robbed and murdered and their property was stolen while they were camping in the Ruby Meadows area. The victims' hands were bound behind their backs with shoelaces and heavy wire. Berta's and Delbert's jeans were pulled below their knees. Were camping together that day in a cabin in the Ruby Meadows area. While they were at the pond. He picked up a .22 caliber rifle and said he was going </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/94-6650.opa.html">MOREWITZ V. WEST OF ENG. SHIP OWNERS MUTUAL PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY ASSOC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morewitz v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/98-5500.opn.html">SHAPS V. PROVIDENT LIFE (1/13/2003, NO. 98-5500)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051012p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.1 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY PGI is the employer sponsor and named fiduciary of the Pressman Gutman Co. Throughout this opinion we will refer to the petition as seeking only a writ of mandamus as all the relief PGI seeks is available through mandamus. Even though the facts relating to defendants' liability are in sharp dispute. The pertinent facts material to our disposition of these matters are undisputed. We note that each party in these contentious proceedings accuses its opponent of improperly citing material outside the record in contravention of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1665312C85BA50868825731C00781F5D/$file/0675424.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Analysis [1] Because a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. We have developed five factors that cabin our power to grant the writ: 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/98-5500.opn.html">SHAPS V. PROVIDENT LIFE (1/13/2003, NO. 98-5500)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30443BDD97F95D3A882570A4005595EC/$file/0335058.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To partially enjoin entry of the judgment on the ground that the state court award was inconsistent with the settlement reached in a prior nationwide class action involving L P and over which the court retained jurisdiction. Settled shortly after it was filed. Class claims related to the failure of Inner Seal Siding were released.1 L P also agreed to The settlement agreement required L P to make a minimum payment of $275. Qualified claims were paid from that fund and class members were barred from litigating any claim related to the failure of Inner Seal Siding for a period of four years from the date of the final order and judgment. At which time the claims administrator was ordered to notify L P if the settlement fund proved insufficient to satisfy all approved claims filed before January 1. L P was directed to advise class counsel whether it intended to satisfy the unfunded claims. It was required to make additional payments </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1538.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. P.A. was on brief. With whom Bourbeau and Bourbeau was on brief. With whom Stephen Dyer was on brief pro se. These four consolidated appeals are emblematic of the difficulties that courts face in dealing with the new sentencing regime. Although the call is close. We hold that Amendment 506 is a reasonable implementation of the statutory mandate. 3 is therefore valid. 762 63 (1st Cir. 1990) (explaining that the primary purposes of the Sentencing Reform Act are to provide certainty. One such set of marching orders is conveyed by 28 U.S.C. 994(h). Which provides in part: The Commission shall assure that the guidelines specify a sentence to a term of imprisonment at or near the maximum term authorized for categories of defendants in which the defendant is eighteen years old or older and [has been convicted of a violent 4 crime or felony drug offense and has at least two such prior convictions]. A defendant is regarded as a career offender if he was at least eighteen years old at the time of the offense of conviction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTI1ODlfc28ucGRm/04-2589_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug09/03-20226-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> OTSI is an independent contractor that supplies experienced personnel. The stated purpose of which was to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug12/02-41655-CV1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which we reproduce below: Carlton and Latanza Gaddis were stopped at a street intersection when a postal employee drove his government vehicle into theirs. Who was pregnant. Arguing that there was no allegation of a conflict of interest among the Gaddises nor of any prejudice to Courtlin's interests. An infant or incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. Except when express provision therefor is made either in a statute of the United States or in these rules. 5 and guardian ad litem fees are not included in § 1920. Bean's claimed expenses were for his legal work as an attorney on behalf of Courtlin. § 2412(a)(1) is the applicable provision governing costs to be taxed against the nonprevailing government in an FTCA case. 5 Section 1920. The court fully considered the government's arguments regarding the taxation of guardian ad litem fees and determined that it was bound to follow our post Crawford Fitting precedents in Dickerson v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4209_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> What is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-50118.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Elaine searched for and was unable to At this point. Snow learned that the photographs were being used in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-50812.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Elaine searched for and was unable to At this point. Snow learned that the photographs were being used in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0933p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> L.P. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200011/97-1715b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were William R. With them on the brief was Jay L. With him on the briefs were J. Open access is the essence of Orders 888 and 889. Open access transmission is expected to increase competition from alternative power suppliers. Are intended to create a market in which customers may purchase power from any of a number of suppliers. Will no longer have to purchase power from its local utility but instead may seek cheaper power anywhere in the country. All key players in the electricity market have challenged various provisions of Orders 888 and 889. Utili ties have been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Economies of scale have justified the construction of large (greater than 500 MW) generation facilities. Techno logical advances in the 1970s and 1980s have permitted small plants to operate efficiently as well. These alternative suppliers have created a wholesale market for low cost power. They have and will continue to exercise that market power in order to maintain and increase market share. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021494.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion filed 8/1/03 is vacated Filed: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02 1494 (CA 00 582 3) August 18. Line 2 of section III the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/97-1715a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were William R. With them on the brief was Jay L. With him on the briefs were J. Open access is the essence of Orders 888 and 889. Open access transmission is expected to increase competition from alternative power suppliers. Are intended to create a market in which customers may purchase power from any of a number of suppliers. Will no longer have to purchase power from its local utility but instead may seek cheaper power anywhere in the country. All key players in the electricity market have challenged various provisions of Orders 888 and 889. Utili ties have been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Economies of scale have justified the construction of large (greater than 500 MW) generation facilities. Techno logical advances in the 1970s and 1980s have permitted small plants to operate efficiently as well. These alternative suppliers have created a wholesale market for low cost power. They have and will continue to exercise that market power in order to maintain and increase market share. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4C3E50E8C15444C88256CA9006081F9/$file/0055306.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question we address here is to what extent. Homedics was sued in federal district court for infringing the design patents of its competitor Nikken. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Nikken appears to allege that Homedics directly infringed its patent by offering to sell infringing products through advertising.1 To show Offering to sell an infringing product is. It alleged that Homedics' sale of its products was severely hurting its business. This action was based on similar activity as Nikken I. The complaint sought damages for breach of contract and a declaration that Homedics was entitled to a defense of the Nikken action by the insurance companies. The case was dismissed against all defendants except ACE on October 20. The court preliminarily found that ACE was obligated under its insurance policy to pay for the defense of Nikken I. Homedics brought a second action against ACE seeking a declaration that ACE was obligated to defend Homedics in Nikken II. Order declaring that ACE was obligated to defend Homedics in Nikken I. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0336p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the ground that her condition had improved to the point that she was no longer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-3178a.htm">97-3178A -- U.S. V. SINGLETON -- 01/08/1999<BR></A><BR> The word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-3178.htm">97-3178 -- U.S. V. SINGLETON -- 01/08/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514920.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A viatical contract is an agreement to purchase life insurance benefits from a viator. A policyholder who is terminally ill or of advanced age. The insurers have not named these individuals or their estates as additional 3 defendants in this suit. Nor have they joined the investors who ultimately purchased interests in these separate viaticals as parties. Is that they all contain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0115p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ryan's is a Delaware corporation. Ryan's argued that Plaintiffs federal court claims were foreclosed by the arbitration agreements that each had executed at the outset of their employment. Holding that there was inadequate consideration for the arbitration agreements. The agreements were not founded upon mutual assent. The court also held that the arbitration forum provided for in the agreements is not able to provide for effective vindication of statutory claims and is an inappropriate substitute for the judicial forum. The second page of the packet notifies the applicant that he or she is required to complete and sign the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2179.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 8. Peltz Walker & Dubinsky were on brief for appellants. Dana & Gould were on brief for appellees. Is invalid under that statute. Or whether such a clause is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. That the arbitration clause is valid. The order of the district court staying this action pending arbitration in Tokyo is affirmed. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Plaintiff appellant Bacchus Associates is a wholesale fruit distributor in the Northeast United States. Bacchus was the owner of a shipment of oranges travelling from Agadir. Is also a plaintiff appellant in this action. References to Bacchus include Vimar where applicable. 2 2 The oranges were shipped under a bill of lading issued in Morocco by Nichiro. Numerous boxes of oranges were crushed. The district court held that the arbitration clause contained in subsection (2) was enforceable. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION COGSA was passed in 1936 as the American enactment of the Hague Rules. Was part of an international effort to achieve uniformity and simplicity in bills of lading used in foreign trade. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/00-1524.htm">00-1524 -- FARMINGTON CASUALTY CO. V. UNITED EDUCATORS INSURANCE RISK RETENTION GROUP INC. -- 06/11/2002<BR></A><BR> We will have the right and duty to defend any suit seeking those damages. . . . If there is another primary insurer. The obligation will be shared equally. Was excess rather than primary insurance. Such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. <p> . . . . <p> If other valid and collectable insurance with any other insurer . . . is available to the Insureds covering a Loss covered by this Policy. Other than insurance which is expressly and specifically in excess of this Policy. After Deitz II was filed. The magistrate judge stated that the new claims could have. Probably should have. Noting that its policy was excess to other available insurance. <p> On February 2. Was not entitled to contribution or subrogation from UE for defense costs related to Deitz I. That Farmington was entitled to reimbursement of defense costs attributable only to Deitz II. <p> In the course of discovery. Which will eliminate [Farmington] from the case. Not clear why they are still offering up to $50k to settle . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5029r.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was William W. Of counsel on the brief were David S. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Jeanne E. Of counsel was Jerome A. A response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the government. Is withdrawn and vacated. Because we hold that the contract is tainted from its inception by fraud and thus void ab initio. That the claims against the government are excused by prior material breach. I. This case is another of the many Winstar cases arising from the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1086p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As such terms are defined and determined under applicable State law. Section 1821(k) was passed by Congress in response to the enactment by various states. Concluding that the enactment of § 1821(k) supplanted any available federal common law actions for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.[fn1] Courts of appeals that have considered these issues have concluded that § 1821(k) does not preempt state law. We will affirm the district court's order in the United Savings action and reverse the court's order in the City Federal action. (7) failing to require and verify that necessary permits and approvals were obtained before funding the loans. At issue in these appeals is whether Congress. As we have stated. The question of the interpretation of § 1821(k) is one of first impression in this circuit. Our review of the construction of federal statutes is plenary. A. The Plain Meaning of the Statute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/02a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bollinger Page 3 appeal the district court's determination that the Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 The Law School contends that its interest in achieving a diverse student body is compelling under Regents of the University of California v. That its admissions policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Law School is joined by the Intervenors: forty one individuals and three student groups. The policy states that the Law School's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-3213.html">LACHANCE JANICE V. DEVALL LARRY<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief were Lorraine Lewis. With her on the brief were Mary L. The Board does not have such independent authority to set penalties. The case is remanded to the Board. Accompanied him as part of her duties to look after officers' property while workers are present. Devall was merely waiting with reasonable diligence for the penetrating oil to take effect. Nevertheless reviewed the penalty under a standard articulated by the administrative judge as follows:<p> [W]hile the agency's choice of penalty is a matter primarily committed to an agency's discretion. When some of the charges relied on by the agency are not sustained. The same deference is not afforded to an agency's selection of penalty. Chairman Erdreich disagreed with the administrative judge's less deferential standard for reviewing agency penalty determinations when fewer than all of an agency's charges against an employee are sustained. Chairman Erdreich stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE43C9BB7916256288256A76007A56DB/$file/9899018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their goal for the day was to film a student movie for Buflo's cinema class at the University of Southern California. While Murtishaw and Laufenburger were driving along the dirt road. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Who were busy filming their movie.1 Murtishaw explained to Buflo that his car had broken down. Buflo explained to Murtishaw and Laufenburger that he and the other students were filming a movie. It was at this time that Murtishaw's intentions toward the students first turned sinister. He 1 The plot of the movie is ironic when compared to the facts of this case. Is stranded in the desert due to car failure. He grows progressively weaker and is confronted by a hooded figure. Is unable to harm it. Thinking that Murtishaw was joking. Soto and Etayo responded that they were not going into town. Murtishaw and Laufenburger walked back to where Buflo and Henderson were still filming in order to watch them. He observed that Murtishaw smelled strongly of alcohol and that he was using profanity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C00F063B75958F1488256E5A00707BB5/$file/9899018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their goal for the day was to film a student movie for Buflo's cinema class at the University of Southern California. While Murtishaw and Laufenburger were driving along the dirt road. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Who were busy filming their movie.1 Murtishaw explained to Buflo that his car had broken down. Buflo explained to Murtishaw and Laufenburger that he and the other students were filming a movie. It was at this time that Murtishaw's intentions toward the students first turned sinister. He 1 The plot of the movie is ironic when compared to the facts of this case. Is stranded in the desert due to car failure. He grows progressively weaker and is confronted by a hooded figure. Is unable to harm it. Thinking that Murtishaw was joking. Soto and Etayo responded that they were not going into town. Murtishaw and Laufenburger walked back to where Buflo and Henderson were still filming in order to watch them. He observed that Murtishaw smelled strongly of alcohol and that he was using profanity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9725.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lines 3 4 the citation is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611826.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm the district court's determination that Deputy Terry was entitled to qualified immunity for effecting a warrantless arrest of McClish within his home. Because Holmberg was never convicted of a crime. We reverse the district court's judgment that his § 1983 wrongful arrest claim was barred by Heck v. The essential facts and procedural history are these. Who was not home when the deputies first arrived. The underlying conflict between the neighbors seems to have arisen over a property dispute. A number of the incidents involving threats or profanity shouted across the property line seem to have occurred when Michael Padzur was clearing brush from the disputed area. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034792.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 6 a quotation mark is added before the asterisks. The names of these individuals are classified. As is much of the information pertinent to this appeal. We have avoided reference to classified material to the greatest extent possible. We are presented with questions of grave significance questions that test the commitment of this nation to an independent judiciary. We agree with the district court that the Government's proposed substitutions for the witnesses' deposition testimony are inadequate. We reverse the district court insofar as it held that it is not possible to craft adequate substitutions. Moussaoui was arrested for an immigration violation in midAugust 2001 and. Was indicted on several charges of conspiracy related to the September 11 attacks. The Government filed a superseding indictment charging Moussaoui with six offenses: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism tranThe name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/97-3053b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Attor ney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Gantt's representation prior to and during trial was marked by confusion. It was then discovered that Attorney X. Rather than the full 72 hours of videotapes that were submit ted into evidence. Appel lant's conviction is affirmed. The evidence offered by the Government to prove the offense was largely uncontested. The facts were as follows. The store was subject to extensive electronic and physical surveillance by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/96-7239b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With him on the brief was Arthur B. Farris was on the brief for amicus curiae Home School Legal Defense Association. Holding that it violates the fundamental rights of minors and their parents and is unconstitutionally vague. Rehearing en banc was granted. Determining that juvenile crime and victimization in the District was a serious prob lem and growing worse unanimously adopted the Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995. The curfew contains eight </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117133ord2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. The United States Supreme Court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/995069.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jurisdiction was based on the diversity of the citizenship of the parties. Practice or work that is the subject of the complaint. Whether Chamberlain's complaint was properly dismissed with prejudice for failure tofile an affidavit of merit. When one or more of the alleged acts of negligence may have occurred before the effective date of the New Jersey affidavit of merit statute. There are no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant dismissal without prejudice. The denial of a default judgment was not an abuse of discretion. We will reverse the judgment of the District 3 Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The physician must state that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/99-4149.htm">99-4149 -- DAVIS V. NORRIS -- 05/01/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Deborah Norris appeals from the district court's dismissal with prejudice of her counterclaims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Who was her neighbor. Davis claimed that their sexual encounters were consensual. The litigation was bitter. The state court ordered that they were to remain confidential and not to be disseminated beyond use by the experts in the Utah state case. <p> In 1993. Davis was convicted of Medicare/Medicaid and insurance fraud in conjunction with his practice as a physician and was sentenced to federal prison. Numerous articles were published about his alleged illegal activities between 1989 and 1994. Norris was interviewed was published in a Salt Lake City. Davis was pending and that she was aware of four other women who claimed he had sexually assaulted them. <p> In June 1995. Norris sent a copy of the 1994 article to the federal prison where he was incarcerated and that he suffered loss of privileges and a . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1141.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. Pleaded guilty to drug possession and drug importation charges after he and Milagros Perez Delgado (Perez) were indicted for conspiracy and drug offenses. Perez moved to have her trial severed from defendant's. The remaining counts were dismissed as to her. Perez is not a party to this appeal. Defendant's contentions on appeal are: that he was never adequately informed of the risks of joint representation. That the trial judge had a duty to inquire into potential conflicts when the severance was vacated. The record indicates that defense counsel explicitly conceded at sentencing that sixteen kilograms were involved in the offense. There is ample support for the trial court's calculations. 4 4 489 90 (1978). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA6D78EB3044DFA488256AF500560956/$file/9856017.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013083.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The centerpiece of the government's case in chief was its evidence implicating the remaining eleven defendants in the conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine alleged in Count 2. The overall thrust of the hundreds of hours of witness testimony was that Williams and Casado. Their mother Susan Hall Gibson 2 Lenard Brown was Leonard Brown's twin brother. We refer to all defendants by their last names except for the Brown twins and Malcolm and Bernard Shaw. 4 were all friends of Williams from the Miami neighborhoods of Carol City. Baptiste was Casado's close friend and business partner. Charlton Darces was a Port of Miami longshoreman who. The government's case was also replete with evidence. The overt acts cited are as follows: 1. To an individual who was later arrested in St. A portion of which was later seized by authorities. Approximately two and one half kilograms of crack which remained from this crack were seized by law enforcement authorities in West Palm Beach. A portion of which was later seized by law enforcement authorities on March 6. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/320791AEDD98BC1288256E5A00707D2F/$file/9856017.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1970.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001505.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Hunter argues on appeal that the district court erred in finding that there was no solicitation of its employees. To determine that the noncompete provisions are unenforceable. That the district court erred in concluding that even if the noncompete provisions were Hunter dismissed its claims against Salter prior to trial. Hunter was not entitled to recover any damages for the employees' breaches of those provisions. Which is a Maryland corporation with offices throughout the country. Is engaged in the sale of various services and products relating to financial accounting and human resources administration. Mann are former employees of Hunter who are now employed at Deloitte. Which is an international consulting firm. Is a competitor of Hunter. Smith was a supervisor in the Department. Each of the employees was a party to a signed employment agreement with Hunter. EMPLOYEE agrees that he/she will not employ or solicit the employment of any HUNTER employee or any of HUNTER's consultants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1050.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Beach & Wilcox were on brief for appellants. Wilcox were on brief for appellants. Grasso & Mortensen were on brief for appellee. Mortensen were on brief for appellee. Of the Ninth Circuit. Asserting that Turkey is the more appropriate forum. Was operating a cruise ship casino. As foreigners doing business in Turkey were required to have Turkish partners. The agreement was made subject to the partners' procurement of all necessary permits from the Turkish government by the Merciers. Sheraton asserts that the Turkish permits were never obtained and that the approval of its parent corporation was never given. The Protocol was conditioned on the Merciers' participation in Lidya and on the approval of gambling by the Turkish </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/991388P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Patrick Shea died of a heart attack at the age of 40 after being assured by his family doctors that a referral to a cardiologist was unnecessary given his age and symptoms. The Secretary of Labor is charged with interpreting and enforcing all provisions of Title I of ERISA. Shea's physicians were designed to minimize referrals to specialists. He would not have trusted his physicians' medical advice so completely but would have sought out the life saving opinion of a specialist at his own expense. Shea's tort claims were preempted by ERISA. Shea's state tort claims against Medica as the plan administrator were preempted by ERISA and that the amended complaint asserting a breach of fiduciary duty failed to state a claim. It is not at issue in this appeal. After this appeal was filed. Shea's medical negligence claim of count I was brought to trial in state court where a jury resolved the claim in favor of the defendants. Shea would not be able to prove that her husband was denied appropriate care. Which they assert is an essential element of Mrs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6062.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are employees of the City of Altus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Approximately 29 City employees are Hispanic. All Plaintiffs are Hispanic and bilingual. Received a complaint that because Street Department employees were speaking Spanish. Other employees could not understand what was being said on <hr> the City radio. Sanchez was particularly concerned that his subordinates. The letter informed Nettles that employees had not been given proper notice if this was a new administrative policy and questioned whether Willis and the City had followed proper procedures in implementing the new policy. Sanchez reported that Willis had told him that the reason Hispanics speak Spanish </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0924n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is from an order granting a defense motion for summary judgment in a retaliatory discharge action. There are two issues before us: (1) whether this case. In which the plaintiff claims that he was constructively discharged in retaliation for his pursuit of Tennessee workers' compensation benefits. Was properly removed from the Tennessee court where it was originally filed. Removal to federal district court on diversity grounds was proper. At least where Tennessee is the locus of the injury for which the workers' compensation claim was brought. We conclude that the governing law is therefore that of Tennessee. The defendant not having shown that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of Tennessee law. The judgment entered by the district court will be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. (Corinth is said to be about two miles from the state line.). When he was cleared to return to work. Nixon was told that he was no longer needed in Tennessee but could work instead as a truck washer for Waste Management of Mississippi in Tupelo. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971706.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The admission of this evidence was improper. I. Background The facts are largely undisputed. That agreement contained two clauses at issue here: an arbitration clause and a choice of law clause specifying that the contract was governed by New York law. Such misrepresentations were actionable under the New York Franchise Sales Act. Gallus proffered the evidence that is at issue here. The documents in question were letters exchanged between the parties' lawyers showing that Pudgie's offered to pay back the $750. Some of these letters were marked </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/954017.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 9 the reference to § 106 is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1304o.html">UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER V. G.D. SEARLE & CO.,INC., ET AL. [ORDER]<BR></A><BR> Filed a petition for rehearing en banc for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the petition were <u>Emily A. Filed an opposition to the petition for defendants <span class=SpellE>appellees</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the opposition were <u>Richard G. Becker</u> and <u>Daniel L. <span class=SpellE>Reisner</span></u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the opposition was <u>Robert L. <span class=SpellE>Baechtold</span></u>. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Susan M. <span class=SpellE>Spaeth</span></u> and <u>Madison C. <span class=SpellE>Jellins</span></u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify'><span style='font size:12.0pt. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/023788P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is an insurance broker who acts as an intermediary between insurance companies and its clients in trying to place insurance coverage for those clients. The DIC program was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7ACE985610E84B3188256ED900685F91/$file/0235805.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILL ACKLES. North Puget Sound Presbytery (together the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1572.html">SPENCER WILLIAMS, V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Janice R. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Richard J. ) are entitled to back pay and future cost of living pay increases under the Ethics Reform </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8407B7C60D0F634D88256C2F005AB250/$file/9935490.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Prince's club was recognized only as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1682.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The common drive for financial returns now brings us a dispute over rights to the income stream of the fastest growing ophthalmic drug in history. <P> The entire range of claims articulated by plaintiff appellant was dismissed by the district court on summary judgment. We will begin our analysis.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4ABAD4869737AF6B882573320059C12E/$file/0574132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She contends that the BIA's holding that she was ineligible to apply for suspension of deportation under former Immigration and Nationality Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/031255p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal centers on the question w h ether the I m m i g r a ti o n a nd Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1096.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. ) were convicted of various counts of conspiracy. Was sentenced to 168 months imprisonment. Sotomayor was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment. Borel was sentenced to a year and a day of imprisonment and ordered to pay $18. ACHS was a non profit organization eligible for federal funding. Was an employee of the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID). Was not officially an employee of ACHS. The evidence showed that he was essentially the director. Appellant Sotomayor was employed as the Operations Manager of ACHS. Appellant Borel was employed by ACHS as a property custodian. He was also the incorporator and purchasing agent of Octagon Corporation (Octagon). One of the outside entities used to divert funds from ACHS.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep27/02-60385.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sr. was convicted of capital murder by a Rankin County. In the penalty phase of the trial the jury returned a death penalty verdict and found that the capital offense was committed for pecuniary gain. That the murder was especially heinous. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the Nixon v. Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court in 1989. Who had married his wife six months earlier (a scant three months after her prior divorce was finalized). Tucker was soon discovered by Tucker's co worker and was taken to the hospital. Nixon was arrested after being identified in a lineup by Mr. Nixon was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Nixon filed a federal habeas petition that was denied by the district court. application for a COA followed. Because the petition was filed before the effective date of the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60385.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sr. was convicted of capital murder by a Rankin County. In the penalty phase of the trial the jury returned a death penalty verdict and found that the capital offense was committed for pecuniary gain. That the murder was especially heinous. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the Nixon v. Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court in 1989. Who had married his wife six months earlier (a scant three months after her prior divorce was finalized). Tucker was soon discovered by Tucker's co worker and was taken to the hospital. Nixon was arrested after being identified in a lineup by Mr. Nixon was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Nixon filed a federal habeas petition that was denied by the district court. application for a COA followed. Because the petition was filed before the effective date of the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/043117P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A test conducted by SJM showed a slightly higher risk of paravalvular leaks at the site where the valves were implanted. Numerous suits were then filed across the nation. The cases were later consolidated in Minnesota. The cases were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in Minnesota pursuant to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. A class action was the superior method to adjudicate those claims. [found] that only significant variations in state law will be sufficient to require different subclasses. The district court found no two states' laws were substantially alike. Conditionally certifying the class only as to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-4147.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The prosecutor told the judge that McMurray was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1146.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith & Cohen were on brief for Donald Thomas Scholz. Given and Goldstein & Phillips were on brief for Paul F. Dispute whether royalties from record albums have been accounted for and paid to each other. The appeal is from a final judgment by the district court after a jury trial. Appellant and cross appellee Donald Thomas Scholz ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/982039.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court's ruling that a release that it signed was enforceable and barred its action against National for damages in connection with Suit Two. Edward O'Neil (O'Neil) was one of the hosts of the Dance Shows. Directors of On Air met with O'Neil regarding his off show conduct with minor females who appeared on the Dance Shows and instructed him to not have any further involvement with underage females. O'Neil continued in a relationship with an underage female and was subsequently removed as a host of the Dance Shows. O'Neil allegedly raped two minor females who were dancers on the Dance Shows. Suit One was filed against On Air alleging that On Air's negligent hiring and supervision of O'Neil contributed to the alleged rape of one of the underage females. Suit Two was filed against On Air and contained similar allegations of negligent hiring and supervision. National determined that while there was no coverage for either suit. The policy was renewed annually. Suit Two was settled by On Air's private counsel for $30. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041816p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we believe the District Court should have determined whether it had personal jurisdiction before ruling on Sinochem's forum non conveniens motion. An American company that is not a party to this action. The coils were required to be loaded for shipment to China by April 30. Triorient was required to submit a valid bill of lading stating that the coils had been loaded on or before April 30. To transport the steel coils to China.1 1 The Vessel was chartered from MISC to Progress Bulk Carriers. Was issued. On the back of the bill of lading were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/031255pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal centers on the question w h ether the I m m i g r a ti o n a nd Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july97/95-1487.wpd.html">KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1<BR></A><BR> Are not justiciable. There is no case or controversy as required by Article III. This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (1) The district court removed the claims of the Congress of Hispanic Educators to a separate and independent civil action under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. This case has evolved through several stages of litigation during which this and other courts have rendered numerous opinions.(2) A brief summary of the history of the case provides necessary context. The Supreme Court determined that the entire Denver school system was a dual system(3) requiring desegregation. Colo. 1995) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912049.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Five district court judges have presided over the case since its inception. Two different circuit courts of appeals have been asked to review one of their decisions.1 In this fifth appeal. We agree with the district court that the answer is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214469.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eight Florida citizens1 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1325.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All six suits were dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction. Asserting that there is diversity jurisdiction over the TCPA claims and that they have representational standing. We affirm the various judgments of dismissal based on the Plaintiffs' lack of standing while rejecting the rationale that diversity jurisdiction is unavailable for these claims. Who are Colorado residents. All six are based on orders containing similar rationales. The district court determined that US Fax Law Center lacked representational standing to assert TCPA claims because such claims are unassignable under Colorado law. The court held that the claims are unassignable because they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0260p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Anna Marie Bowling Irrevocable Trust Page 2 The district court found that Spectrum's lien on the proceeds of a malpractice settlement was valid and enforceable. Therefore is invalid. Spectrum argues that the issue of the validity of the lien is precluded by two prior state court judgments approving the malpractice settlement. We conclude that the issue is not precluded by either of the state court judgments. That the lien on the settlement is prohibited by federal and state Medicaid law. I. BACKGROUND The material facts in this case are undisputed. Bowling has little or no control of her limbs and is unable to speak. Spectrum is the parent company of a group of providers of sub acute rehabilitation and nursing services. Bowling was admitted to GVHC in December 1998. The total customary cost of Spectrum's services provided to Bowling during the time she resided at GVHC was $639. The 1 It is unclear from the record how Bowling's co payments factor into the shortfall. Spectrum states that its total customary cost was $639. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1097.html">FEDERAL MOGUL CORP. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3081.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question before us in this appeal is a narrow procedural one: can this court review the district court's decision to remand the case to the state court in which it was originally filed? We conclude that the best way to interpret the district court's order is as one finding that it had no subject matter jurisdiction over the claims that were 2 Nos. 01 3081 & 01 3418 remanded. Even if we are wrong and the order was simply a decision to remand all supplemental state claims to the state court. We would exercise our jurisdiction to find that there was no abuse of discretion in that decision. Was filed in Illinois state court by injured passengers and the estates of those killed as a result of the collision. The additional defendants were the manufacturers. Two from that group are relevant to this appeal: Illinois Central. GE claimed that any lawsuit these plaintiffs were bringing was inevitably and necessarily based on a federal question. Thus removal was available under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b).). Which is a federal instrumentality. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1935.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Susan Cooper Houben's dispute with her former employer Telular Corporation about commissions it owed her is making its second appearance before this court. We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. Declined to resolve whether Telular owed additional post trial statutory penalties under IWPCA for failing to pay the judgment within 15 days after it was docketed. The district court concluded that Telular was not subject to any additional IWPCA penalties and denied Houben's writ of execution. I The facts of this case are set out in detail in our prior opinion. The judgment was docketed two days later. (Although there is some confusion in the record about the choice between May 18 and May 20 for the actual date of the judgment. P. 79(a) indicates that it is the date of docketing that counts. IWPCA provides that an employer who has been ordered by a court to pay wages due an employee and fails to do so within 15 days is liable for statutory penalties of 1% of the wages per calendar day of delay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-4070.htm">99-4070 -- LIGHTON V. UNIVERSITY OF UTAH -- 04/24/2000<BR></A><BR> At issue is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Dr. A subordinate female researcher from South Africa who was visiting his laboratory for two to three months to learn advanced respirometry techniques for insects. Lighten simply stated: <p> The actions of the University of Utah have made it impossible for me to retain my academic post in the Biology Department without compromising my respect for both this institution and myself. <p> Following Dr. Also commented on their fortune in resolving the situation so quickly.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2323.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. This matter is before the en banc court to review issues emanating from the panel opinion in O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. The underlying facts relating to the parties and the issues are fully described in the panel opinion and are therefore unnecessary to reiterate here. The en banc court is divided over the outcome of this case. The en banc court holds that courts in this Circuit must recognize that any preliminary injunction fitting within one of the disfavored categories must be more closely scrutinized to assure that the exigencies of the case support the granting of a remedy that is extraordinary even in the normal course. Movants seeking such an injunction are not entitled to rely on this Circuit's modified likelihood of success on the merits standard. A majority of the en banc court is of the view that the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction in this case should be affirmed. The decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to grant UDV's request for a preliminary injunction is hereby AFFIRMED. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0137p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ford claimed that it was unaware prior to trial as to the nature of Syson's testimony. Syson stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/90-3525.man.html">BUENOANO V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Buenoano v. Buenoano was convicted in Orange County. This appeal is from the district court's denial of relief on her first 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/90-3525.man.html">BUENOANO V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Buenoano v. Buenoano was convicted in Orange County. This appeal is from the district court's denial of relief on her first 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044628p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Roth assumed senior status. * This case was argued before the panel of Judges Fuentes. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (Filed: June 7. Was fired after she signed her name to a pro choice advertisement in the local newspaper. Curay Cramer asserts both that signing the advertisement was conduct protected by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 3(a) and that she was fired for conduct less egregious under Catholic doctrine than conduct of male employees who were treated less harshly. We will affirm but. I. Factual Background Ursuline Academy is a private. That right is under 3 attack. We urge all Delawareans and elected officials at every level to be vigilant in the fight to ensure that women now and in the future have the right to choose. Following the text were the names of the individuals endorsing it. Curay Cramer was called into the office of Barbara C. Griffin informed Curay Cramer that the school was deeply troubled by her public support of a position inimical to accepted Catholic doctrine and that Griffin was considering terminating Curay Cramer's employment with the school. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2415.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/397706C0E5F6527388256BF4007211DB/$file/0055689.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Kenneth Nord was formerly employed as a Material Planner for Kwikset Corporation. The position is a sedentary one. Nord was enrolled in the Black & Decker Disability Plan. The third party Claims Administrator retained while Nord's claim was under review was Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-3134.wpd.html">CHAMBERS V. FAMILY HEALTH PLAN CORP.<BR></A><BR> The parties agreed to have a federal magistrate judge hear the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. Is a beneficiary of a prepaid healthcare plan provided by FHP ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033176p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Facts As the material facts are generally not in dispute. The facts presented below are taken in large part verbatim from the District Court's opinion in this case. Additional facts are incorporated from the parties' submissions and appendices. American agreed to hire almost all of TWA's unionized employees provided that certain labor protective provisions in their various contracts were eliminated. Was eliminated. TWA's pilots were represented by DefendantAppellee ALPA through its TWA Master OPINION OF THE COURT VAN ANTWERPEN. Plaintiffs Appellants (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1363.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. We reverse in part and vacate and remand in part the district court's declaration that the releases at issue are enforceable. An employee was required to sign a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1266.html">LOUGH V. BRUNSWICK CORP.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Ernest M. With him on the brief were Eileen J. This is the second appeal in an action by John Greene ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA0MTItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0412-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must decide whether Section 360k(a) preempts common law tort claims regarding medical devices that have entered the market pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F569EF00290007188256BC0005876E6/$file/9935320ebcorrected.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\temp21\PlannedParenthoodLetter1.wpd
	OPINION/ORDER FACE gives aggrieved persons a right of action against whoever by
	OPINION/ORDER While six year old Urvashi was playing a
	OPINION/ORDER Alvin alleges that he was deprived of expected pay increases. That his reputation was damaged in the process. He also contends that his tenure in the UPitt Pharmacology Department was improperly severed and that 2 he was transferred to a tenured position in the Dental School without his consent. That he was never afforded a hearing in which he could defend himself and explain both the propriety of his conduct and the unjustness of the deprivations he alleges that he suffered. The gravamen of Alvin's suit is therefore that he was deprived of his Fourteenth Amendment right in the property of his tenure without due process of law. Named as defendants were UPitt. The District Court's opinion focused largely on the question whether the alleged incidents comprised such a significant erosion of the incidents of his tenure that he was deprived of a property interest. With respect to some of Alvin's claims that he was deprived of secretarial support. That 3 his yearly evaluations were conducted unfairly. That his tenure was transferred he adduced no evidence that he attempted to use the grievance procedure to resolve them.
	OPINION/ORDER The principal issue on appeal is whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing. Facts The following facts are taken from the Ohio Supreme Court's opinion on direct appeal. The apartment was otherwise exceptionally neat and clean. A stack stereo with two speakers were missing from Bradford's apartment. She was five feet. A portion of her lungs was missing. Were wound eight. Wound ten punctured the liver and was no more than four inches in depth. Showed no signs of hemorrhage and thus were inflicted after death or when the heart was not pumping sufficient blood. Six were superficial. All the wounds could have been inflicted by the same. Which was about four blocks from Bradford's house. Smith was not at home. Telling him he would
	ROMINE V. HEAD (6/15/2001, NO. 99-12449) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER The action was brought in 1998 by a class of approximately 15. P. 23(a) (
	00-7008 -- JOHNSON V. GIBSON -- 04/27/2001 Johnson was convicted of acting with Ricky Masquat to beat and set afire Billy Webb. Stated to the apartment manager that Webb was evil and that if Johnson ever thought that Webb would hurt the manager's children. Pour gasoline on him and burn him up then no one would ever have to worry about Webb again. Three days later. Webb had told another resident that he was going
	OPINION/ORDER Is withdrawn and the attached opinion is ORDERED filed. The full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The action was brought in 1998 by a class of approximately 15. P. 23(a) (
	OPINION/ORDER At issue is the ownership of certain real property in Camden. The district court held that Plaintiff Scotts African Union Methodist Protestant Church (
	ROMINE V. HEAD (6/15/2001, NO. 99-12449) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER Insurance companies are expressly excluded from federal bankruptcy laws. Reliance2 was placed in rehabilitation proceedings. Reliance's principal argument is that the district court erred in continuing to exercise jurisdiction over Hawthorne's suit once the rehabilitation proceedings began. Charging substantial fees and interest.4 After the period in which Bazyler could have rescinded the loan without penalty passed. Braly decided to have Hawthorne bid against Bazyler at the foreclosure sale. Even though there was no doubt that Bazyler had the necessary collateral for the extra funds. Hawthorne was insured by a
	OPINION/ORDER 2005 and appearing at 421 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2005) is hereby amended as follows: 1) 421 F.3d at 852. Reliance2 was placed in rehabilitation proceedings. Reliance's principal argument is that the district court erred in continuing to exercise jurisdiction over Hawthorne's suit once the rehaInsurance companies are expressly excluded from federal bankruptcy laws. Charging substantial fees and interest.4 After the period in which Bazyler could have rescinded the loan without penalty passed. Braly decided to have Hawthorne bid against Bazyler at the foreclosure sale. Even though there was no doubt that Bazyler had the necessary collateral for the extra funds. The facts giving rise to the original settlement between Bazyler and Hawthorne are undisputed and were stipulated at trial. 4 HAWTHORNE SAVINGS v. Hawthorne was insured by a
	OPINION/ORDER That Thomas was
	OPINION/ORDER Daley & White was on brief for Commercial Union Insurance Company. Mendes & Mount were on brief for Walbrook Insurance Co. This gap was partially filled by a separate Engineers Professional Liability Endorsement issued by Travelers (
	99-3387 -- KEYS YOUTH SERVICE INC. V. CITY OF OLATHE -- 05/11/2001 Keys cross appeals from the court's bench trial ruling that Olathe's denial of the zoning permit was not based on Keys' handicap status under the FHA and that the permit denial did not violate state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
	OPINION/ORDER Ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt and penalty phases are the predominant ones. He also asserts that (4) the 1978 California death penalty statute under which he was convicted and sentenced is unconstitutional. We agree with the courts that have already reviewed this case that. Regardless of whether the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the guilt phase was deficient. We hold that the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the penalty phase was deficient and that Mayfield suffered prejudice as a result. The state court shall conduct a new sentencing proceeding to determine whether Mayfield is to be sentenced to death or to life without parole. The car was repossessed because of delinquent payments. Byron was in possession of the car for only three days before it disappeared from the Popes' driveway. Mayfield and two of his friends were arrested in the car a day later. Mayfield pled guilty to one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle and was released pending a sentencing hearing. He was told that he would be sentenced to one year in jail.
	OPINION/ORDER Luckerman was on brief. Russell was on brief. Were on brief. We reverse.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Officials of the State of Georgia appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of O.C.G.A. § 21 5 35 to prohibit a member of the General Assembly from accepting contributions for a campaign for federal office while the General Assembly is in session. the district court's The court (Judge Hill dissenting) affirms grant of the preliminary injunction. Concluding that the Georgia statute is preempted by the Federal Election Campaign Act. I. Doug Teper is a member of the Georgia General Assembly who is contemplating a campaign for federal office. Teper's co plaintiffs are potential contributors to his federal campaign. Teper is precluded by a provision of the Georgia Ethics in Government Act. The Supreme Court has recognized that often in cases challenging rules governing elections there is not sufficient time between the filing of the complaint and the election to obtain judicial resolution of the controversy before the election. This exception applies under two conditions:
	OPINION/ORDER Ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt and penalty phases are the predominant ones. He also asserts that (4) the 1978 California death penalty statute under which he was convicted and sentenced is unconstitutional. We agree with the courts that have already reviewed this case that. Regardless of whether the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the guilt phase was deficient. We hold that the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the penalty phase was deficient and that Mayfield suffered prejudice as a result. The state court shall conduct a new sentencing proceeding to determine whether Mayfield is to be sentenced to death or to life without parole. The car was repossessed because of delinquent payments. Byron was in possession of the car for only three days before it disappeared from the Popes' driveway. Mayfield and two of his friends were arrested in the car a day later. Mayfield pled guilty to one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle and was released pending a sentencing hearing. He was told that he would be sentenced to one year in jail.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was president and majority shareholder of Integrated Design & Construction. Krebs & Moran was a Virginia MCCOUBREY v. When it became apparent that Kellogg was a potential witness in the case. Moved to dismiss the case as to McCoubrey on the ground that he was not an
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs claim those rights as successors in interest to 96 mineral servitudes that were created before the United States purchased the land in the 1930s. We need not reach the merits of Plaintiffs' cross appeal regarding attorneys' fees since plaintiffs are no longer prevailing parties.1 I. Prevailing party status is a prerequisite attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b). 21 * to recovering merits of this factually dense case. The holder of that servitude has the right to enter the property and extract the minerals.4 Louisiana law has long provided that a mineral servitude is extinguished by prescription resulting from ten years' nonuse.5 The period of prescription on mineral servitudes begins to run on the date a Frost Johnson Lumber Co. v. R.S. § 31:21 (
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs claim those rights as successors in interest to 96 mineral servitudes that were created before the United States purchased the land in the 1930s. We need not reach the merits of Plaintiffs' cross appeal regarding attorneys' fees since plaintiffs are no longer prevailing parties.1 I. Prevailing party status is a prerequisite attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b). 21 * to recovering merits of this factually dense case. The holder of that servitude has the right to enter the property and extract the minerals.4 Louisiana law has long provided that a mineral servitude is extinguished by prescription resulting from ten years' nonuse.5 The period of prescription on mineral servitudes begins to run on the date a Frost Johnson Lumber Co. v. R.S. § 31:21 (
	00-7008A -- JOHNSON V. GIBSON -- 04/27/2001 A copy of the published opinion is attached. Entered for the Court Patrick Fisher. Johnson was convicted of acting with Ricky Masquat to beat and set afire Billy Webb. Stated to the apartment manager that Webb was evil and that if Johnson ever thought that Webb would hurt the manager's children. Pour gasoline on him and burn him up then no one would ever have to worry about Webb again. Three days later. Webb had told another resident that he was going
	OPINION/ORDER Smetanka Jonathan Will (Argued) Law Student Specially Admitted Pursuant to Third Cir. Seeking repayment of medical benefits she incurred for a surgical procedure to treat her temporomandibular joint dysfunction (
	OPINION/ORDER The proposal was scheduled to go into effect on December 23. At stake today is whether the federal courts should permit this state initiative to go into effect or whether we should preliminarily enjoin it in part in the part. That is. Uncertainty about the law's impact on current admissions policies and uncertainty about changing admissions policies in the middle of the current enrollment season we are unable to identify any tenable basis under federal law for suspending the law's enforcement. We have no choice but to permit its enforcement in accordance with the state law framework that gave it birth. I. Legal and policy debates about admissions preferences in the university setting are not new to the people of Michigan. The executive director of which is Jennifer Gratz. Fourth:
	OPINION/ORDER The proposal was scheduled to go into effect on December 23. At stake today is whether the federal courts should permit this state initiative to go into effect or whether we should preliminarily enjoin it in part in the part. That is. Uncertainty about the law's impact on current admissions policies and uncertainty about changing admissions policies in the middle of the current enrollment season we are unable to identify any tenable basis under federal law for suspending the law's enforcement. We have no choice but to permit its enforcement in accordance with the state law framework that gave it birth. I. Legal and policy debates about admissions preferences in the university setting are not new to the people of Michigan. The executive director of which is Jennifer Gratz. Fourth:
	97-1418 -- ASSOCIATIONS WORKING FOR AURORA'S RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT V. COLORADO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION -- 07/27/1998 The Contractor was to provide
	OPINION/ORDER Whether the district court here had jurisdiction turns on whether Washington's waiver of his right to file a federal habeas petition is enforceable with respect to an IAC claim that challenges the validity of the waiver itself. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Washington was found guilty of two counts of aggravated murder. To the sentence he will receive based on this stipulation. This waiver is intended to eliminate the possibility of any future litigation regarding the defendant's pretrial motions. The stipulation also stated that
	OPINION/ORDER The plaintiffs are a collection of associations and individuals led by the American Civil Liberties Union. Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims. Of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has
	TEPER V. MILLER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Teper v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Officials of the State of Georgia appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of O.C.G.A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/02/961763P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. claims and was dismissed from the case. Although Doe settled his claim and was dismissed from Roe's Br. at 1 n.2. This action was the case. Doe is no longer a party to this action. This case remains a We will therefore In 1989. United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 Insurance on property I [Roe] give as security is required. If insurance is required. I promise to keep the property insured throughout the term of my loan and to deliver a certificate of insurance to you that shows I have purchased insurance of this kind. ... I will immediately repay you for any amounts you spend in purchasing that insurance. In force during the term of the loan and will furnish Norwest . . . with a loss payable endorsement upon each renewal of said insurance. Which indicated that only Norwest's interest in the vehicle was insured. The same process was repeated. Which is otherwise similar to ordinary comprehensive and collision coverage. Is limited to either the damage to the collateral or the balance of the customer's loan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/00-16472.opn.html">DELTA AIR LINES V. AIR LINE PILOTS ASS'N (1/18/2001, NO. 00-16472)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/00-16472.opn.html">DELTA AIR LINES V. AIR LINE PILOTS ASS'N (1/18/2001, NO. 00-16472)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/96-8147.man.html">TEPER V. MILLER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Teper v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Officials of the State of Georgia appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of O.C.G.A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E190386953A21BB288256E5A00707C9E/$file/9956814.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The underlying facts are not in dispute. We have reviewed both tapes. All other pending motions are denied. 2 Under 21 U.S.C. § 321. Is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/023456P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brought this action to recover for the wrongful deaths of four Indonesian nationals who were killed in a vehicle accident in Nebraska. 1 and David Kevin McGrath moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the Consul General was not the real party in interest. McGrath was parked on the right shoulder of the exit ramp in a posted no parking zone. Were killed as a result of the accident and the remaining six passengers sustained injuries. Alleging that he was the legal representative of the victims of the accident and that the Iowa Owner's Consent statute. Federal jurisdiction was alleged under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(4). The remedies for wrongful death were limited to the remedies provided by the Iowa legislature. The Consul General would therefore have to qualify to bring the suit under the Iowa wrongful death statute. The substitution was approved by the Nebraska court on January 3. These included whether the Consul General was a real party in interest under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a). Whether the Consul General was serving as administrator for any estate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1637.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. Grumman's most intriguing argument presented below as both a defense and a counterclaim is that DG illegally maintained its monopoly in the market for service of DG computers by unilaterally refusing to license ADEX to Grumman and other competitors. The antitrust claims are intriguing because they present a curious conflict. Must tolerate short term harm to the competitive process when such harm is caused by the otherwise lawful exercise of an economically potent </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-5122.htm">01-5122 -- DUBUC V. JOHNSON -- 01/02/2003<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee as directed will result in the dismissal of his appeal for failure to prosecute. <u>See</u> <u>Young v. The opinions of the panel in support of and in opposition to this Order are attached. <p> <strong>McKAY</strong>. Alleged defects occurring during trial proceedings. <p> Plaintiff is a prisoner bringing a civil appeal after having at least three prior actions or appeals dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous. 1915(g) applies to prisoners who have filed at least three prior frivolous actions or appeals. Brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous. Unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. <p> <u>Id.</u> An action or appeal that has been dismissed as frivolous. Or for failure to state a claim is commonly referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/51127E931C8AAC3088256ABE0059E917/$file/9956814.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The underlying facts are not in dispute. We have reviewed both tapes. All other pending motions are denied. 2 Under 21 U.S.C. § 321. Is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/022666.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs are five former employees of the nowbankrupt Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1108.html">HAROLD L. BOWERS V. BAYSTATE TECHNOLOGIES<BR></A><BR> Filed a response for plaintiff cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the response were <u>Steve S. Filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Judith R. CAD programs have assisted engineers to draft and design on a computer screen.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>George W. Bowers that it believed it had the in house capability to develop the type of products you have proposed. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoFooter style='text align:justify. 2) the 514 patent is invalid. 3) the 514 patent is unenforceable.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Mr. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/99-10895.ma2.html">FORD V. HALEY (11/8/1999, NO. 99-10895)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Petitioner Pernell Ford ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B3401662DC6DAE0F882572EB004D0A8A/$file/0555742.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> TURNER ENTERTAINMENT CO. she is owed from the profits of the motion picture. Because there are triable issues of fact. Inc. are integral to this case.1 On July 22. Which are herein referred to as `the Pictures.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1076.html">JOHNSON & JOHNSTON V. R.E. SERVICE<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/50507A2C222A41B8882573530050F816/$file/0555742.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2007 is amended as follows: On page 6443 of the slip opinion. After the sentence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/99-10895.ma2.html">FORD V. HALEY (11/8/1999, NO. 99-10895)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Petitioner Pernell Ford ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2FFA708350DB84B7882570F2007CE9E4/$file/0435618.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tuazon was diagnosed with a chronic lung disorder in 2003 in his native Philippines. Who was born and lived in the Philippines. A condition he suspected was smoking related. Tuazon was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder in 2003. Reynolds' market share in Washington was 29 31%. While its national market share was 23 24%. Reynolds was conducting sophisticated market research. Reynolds organized local opposition to city and state legislation that would have banned or limited smoking and cigarette advertising. It is not necessary to summarize the history of tobacco litigation here. Information on tobacco related litigation and the master settlement agreement is made available by the National Association of Attorneys General. Tuazon claims that Reynolds was able to suppress information regarding tobacco's addictive and corrosive health effects. Tuazon bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction is appropriate. The decision was based on written submissions only. Exercise of in personam jurisdiction over an out of state defendant is limited by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/017500.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These convictions arose from Goines' possession of a firearm while he was selling and using illegal drugs. These terms were the product of separate analyses under the sentencing guidelines because § 924(c) requires a consecutive sentence. As is relevant here. Amendment 599 modified Note 2 to include the following language: If a sentence under this guideline is imposed in conjunction with a sentence for an underlying offense. Including any such enhancement that would apply based on conduct for which the defendant is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct). . . . If the explosive or weapon that was possessed . . . in the course of the underlying offense also results in a conviction that would subject the defendant to an enhancement under . . . §2K2.1(b)(5) (pertaining to possession of any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense). The defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The Commission sought </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8C634C77CA7EC26288256F2B005855BB/$file/0335294.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Insisting that a biased jury that was convened for a trial in an improper venue convicted him after considering impermissible hearsay evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291. MOORE 14433 I We set forth first John Casey's testimony about how his wife was shot and died. Rosemary Casey was shot by a bullet fired from John Casey's semiautomatic .30 06 caliber hunting rifle. John Casey decided to oil his rifle by spraying Break Free oil down the barrel because the barrel was rusty. After placing a piece of cardboard and some rags over a garbage can which served as a makeshift workspace he planned to use to clean the gun John Casey moved the slide on the rifle back and no shell ejected or was visible. John Casey told the jury that while he held a rag over the rifle's action (to catch the cleaning solvent as it was forced through the barrel). His key defensive testimony was that he then unintentionally touched the trigger. She was later flown to Seattle for treatment but. Made it impossible for him to have a fair trial there. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA0MTItY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-0412-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must decide whether Section 360k(a) preempts common law tort claims regarding medical devices that have entered the market pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2059.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even though the only possible basis for federal jurisdiction was diversity of citizenship. They have done so. The supplemental briefs reveal that Hoagland is a citizen of Illinois. It is his citizenship rather than Midwest's that is germane to diversity. Because there is no suggestion that he was appointed receiver in order to create diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1359. That while the Sandberg firm is a professional corporation incorporated and having its principal place of business in Missouri. Three of the twenty two members of the firm (the shareholders in the professional corporation) are citizens of Illinois. If the citizenship of the members is what counts for purposes of determining diversity. As would be the case if the law firm were a partnership. A number of subsequent cases are in accord. There are no contrary decisions. Made clear that Coté stands for a rule that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept97/96-6140.wpd.html">UNITED STATES CELLULAR INV. CO. V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL MOBILE SYS.<BR></A><BR> Background The Oklahoma City SMSA Limited Partnership (OKC Partnership) was formed among competing applicants to operate a cellular telephone system within the five county area of the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Statistical Area (Oklahoma City MSA). SBMS was the sole and managing general partner with a 40% interest as a general partner and a 22% interest as a limited partner. The remaining 38% interest was held by three other limited partners. The primary issue in this lawsuit is whether SBMS could expand into these rural areas on its own behalf. Or whether instead it was obligated to do so on behalf of the limited partnership. The central sections of the Agreement in dispute are 8.8 and 7.2(f). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0245n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Venue was proper in the Western District of Michigan under the FCA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Summary judgment is proper where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The central issue is whether the evidence presents sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA0NTAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0450-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On this appeal we are asked to clarify the scope of our holding in Koreag. Where we ruled that the ownership of property a debtor claims as part of its estate in a foreign bankruptcy proceeding is a question </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3094.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As such was responsible for the overall operations of the company. Were initial investors in (1) The judgments in favor of Cassandra and John O'Tool on their breach of employment contract claims were not appealed. <hr> Horizon. Pepper's initial goal was to manufacture and sell aluminum jon boats (a/k/a utility boats) he had designed. Was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA0NTAtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-0450-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On this appeal we are asked to clarify the scope of our holding in Koreag. Where we ruled that the ownership of property a debtor claims as part of its estate in a foreign bankruptcy proceeding is a question </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-4170.htm">01-4170 -- U.S. V. WELCH -- 04/22/2003<BR></A><BR> Johnson were the President and . SLBC's primary purpose was to secure. Utah.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/11/971712P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Armstrong was diagnosed with leukemia. Which was performed the next day. The smear evaluation confirmed that Armstrong's white blood cell count was low and showed that her blood cells were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0462a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Davis was sentenced to multiple concurrent life sentences. Davis sought to have witness Damaris Jourdan testify as to Jourdan's prior statements. Straub Page 2 the court that Jourdan was a suspect and should consult with a lawyer before testifying. The court stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2340.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2B51AFD9071888AA88256AB6005EEA41/$file/0015259.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a case in which an ousted business partner has attempted to force an involuntary bankruptcy in order to gain 11666 a business advantage. It calls for this Court to determine the test to be used in determining whether a dispute is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/35D299D5B4EF32D788256E5A00707C80/$file/0015259.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a case in which an ousted business partner has attempted to force an involuntary bankruptcy in order to gain 11666 a business advantage. It calls for this Court to determine the test to be used in determining whether a dispute is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/2b51afd9071888aa88256ab6005eea41/$FILE/0015259.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a case in which an ousted business partner has attempted to force an involuntary bankruptcy in order to gain 11666 a business advantage. It calls for this Court to determine the test to be used in determining whether a dispute is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/35d299d5b4ef32d788256e5a00707c80/$FILE/0015259.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a case in which an ousted business partner has attempted to force an involuntary bankruptcy in order to gain 11666 a business advantage. It calls for this Court to determine the test to be used in determining whether a dispute is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0140874F27FEBC7A88256B440000ABC3/$file/0015259.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is recalled. 814 The Opinion cited at 262 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2001). Is amended as follows: On page 996. It was agreed that this list could not be released without a court order. They argue that the Bankruptcy Court was required to notify each of the creditors on the list of the pending involuntary petition. If it appears that there are 12 or more creditors as provided in § 303(b) of the Code. The court shall afford a reasonable opportunity for other creditors to join in the petition before a hearing is held thereon. After an involuntary petition is filed but before the case is dismissed or relief is ordered. Unsecured claim may join in the petition </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3442.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Francesca Alvaro. With her on the brief were Neil A.G. Garcia had not proven that her actions were involuntary and therefore dismissed Ms. I An adverse action is an official action taken by a federal agency and imposed on an employee. Such official action is by statute clearly within the jurisdiction of the Board. An aggrieved employee can appeal such an action to the Board for a determination as to whether the action was proper. 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d) (2000). It deals with what is known as a constructive adverse action. Although a resignation is ostensibly a voluntary separation from employment. It is possible that an employee can be coerced into resigning by actions of the employing agency. Such an involuntary adverse action is known as a constructive adverse action. Garcia alleges that the constructive adverse action was prompted by a violation of her rights to be free from discrimination in the workplace. It is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2055.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allen & Snyder was on consolidated brief for Woloohojian Realty Corporation. Goodale and MacAdams & Wieck Incorporated were on consolidated brief for Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank. Cannavino and Cummings & Lockwood were on consolidated brief for Elizabeth V. What could have been a relatively simple suit has been complicated by intervening actions by Bogosian's creditors. The original parties have been litigating for over ten years. The action was brought as a diversity suit in the federal district court. The defendants were the corporation and Bogosian's two brothers. Bogosian is entitled to the fair value of her shares as of January 19. Judge Boyle's first action was to provide interim relief to Bogosian. 000 monthly until the entry of a final judgment from which no appeal was taken. Judge Boyle appointed a special master to value the property and much of the next two years appears to have been spent in this exercise. It was sent back for adjustments. At least one objective was to stem the accrual of interest on WRC's debt to Bogosian. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0323p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the district court should have vacated not only his sentence. Petitioner was convicted of hiring James Earl Darby to murder Archie Moore in violation of Ohio Revised Code §§ 2903.01(A) and 2929.04(A)(2). Berry later told some friends that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2002/01-11062.opn.html">GRIFFITH V. GEN. MOTORS CORP. (8/29/2002, NO. 01-11062)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/0140874f27febc7a88256b440000abc3/$FILE/0015259.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is recalled. 814 The Opinion cited at 262 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2001). Is amended as follows: On page 996. It was agreed that this list could not be released without a court order. They argue that the Bankruptcy Court was required to notify each of the creditors on the list of the pending involuntary petition. If it appears that there are 12 or more creditors as provided in § 303(b) of the Code. The court shall afford a reasonable opportunity for other creditors to join in the petition before a hearing is held thereon. After an involuntary petition is filed but before the case is dismissed or relief is ordered. Unsecured claim may join in the petition </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0433p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is the issue this case requires the court to resolve. The claimants to the stock are a class of employees ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2002/01-11062.opn.html">GRIFFITH V. GEN. MOTORS CORP. (8/29/2002, NO. 01-11062)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2OThfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7698_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cross appeals by certain plaintiffs from so much of the district court's order as * The present caption in these consolidated appeals lists as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3363410FEA69347288256D9B005A91AA/$file/0256034.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was Los Angeles's Rent Stabilization Ordinance ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/429E2096892C3D8388256E00005FEB65/$file/0355785final.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues we are required to confront are new. 1 scores of individuals who were captured by the American military during its operations in Afghanistan. The captured individuals were labeled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/04-5350a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O:\Slip\WP\2005\04 5350 Abigail Alliancea28a.odl.wpd
	OPINION/ORDER The issues we are required to confront are new. 1 scores of individuals who were captured by the American military during its operations in Afghanistan. The captured individuals were labeled
	OPINION/ORDER Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal by Debra Miller and Inez Sales. We consider it unnecessary to address the recusal issue as it might have affected the judgment appealed. Observe that our declination to address it is without prejudice to the right of Miller or Sales to renew their recusal motion upon remand if so disposed. 2 I. Republican George Allen was elected Governor of Virginia replacing incumbent Democrat Douglas Wilder.1 At the time. Linda Arnold was the General Registrar of the City of Lynchburg and Miller and Sales were employed as her Assistant Registrars. A general registrar is appointed for a four year term by the electoral board of each county or city. Electoral boards are composed of three members. Who are appointed based on the political party that they represent. The composition of each board is dictated by the political affiliation of the governor currently in office. The party winning the previous gubernatorial election is entitled to two of the three electoral board seats with the remaining seat being filled by the political party garnering the second highest number of votes for the governorship.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. PSC were on brief. Lopez Bras were on brief. Are members of the New Progressive Party (NPP). This fund was to be
	OPINION/ORDER The Federal Bureau of Investigation. contend that their convictions are the result of a corrupt Tunica Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Butler was given marked money and wore a Lieutenant Hudson testified that Bowens' voice is heard on the audiotape telling Butler that his police source said Butler was 2 not a good customer. you.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Richard J. The court would have no jurisdiction over an appeal from the Board. BACKGROUND Appellant Bates is an attorney who represents claimants for benefits before the VA. Such representation is permissible only if an attorney is accredited by the VA pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 5901 and 5904(a). Bates was accredited. Bates was also accused of violating 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(2) by seeking unreasonable fees from his clients. Bates urged that the Secretary's action was reviewable by the Board. Because the Secretary's decision to cancel his accreditation under 38 U.S.C. § 5904(b) was such a decision. An SOC is a mandatory prerequisite to a Board appeal. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7105(a) and (d) (2000). the SOC. The court held that it would possess jurisdiction to issue the writ only if the granting of Bates' petition could lead to a Board decision over which the court would have jurisdiction. Therefore there was no authority to issue a writ of mandamus. 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (2000).
	01-1077 -- U.S. V. CONSUMER INSURANCE GROUP -- 02/10/2003 Modrejewski told Holmes
	OPINION/ORDER Was bound by a promise to pay Beazer all or part of Beazer's response costs on a Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act. The magistrate judge had concluded that Mead was a responsible party for purposes of CERCLA but that the asset purchase agreement (
	OPINION/ORDER We must determine whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a code enforcement officer condemns an apartment complex and evicts the tenants without providing the tenants with contemporaneous notice of their right to appeal the condemnation decision. We must then determine whether the tenants' right to contemporaneous notice was established with such clarity at the time of eviction in this case that the chief of the City of Orlando's Code Enforcement Bureau is not entitled to qualified immunity. Threatened to declare the building unfit for human occupancy if the Our recitation of the facts is based primarily on the admitted facts contained in the parties' joint pretrial statement. To the extent that material facts are in dispute. As we must when the issue of qualified immunity is raised in a summary judgment motion. 92526 n.3 (11th Cir. 2000). 2 1 violations were not corrected.2 The owner was informed that the City of Orlando Code Enforcement Board (
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Abatie was employed by the Santa Barbara Medical Foundation Clinic (
	OPINION/ORDER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
	OPINION/ORDER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
	OPINION/ORDER DeFreitas and Saab Law Firm were on brief for appellant. This appeal presents issues regarding the scope of jurisdiction of federal courts over claims for benefits under an employee benefits plan that is subject to regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Ordinarily the appropriate judgment for a district court to order is one or the other of two kinds. If the district court determines that the out of court decisions were arbitrary and capricious. The appropriate form of order is one remanding to the out of court decisionmaker for further proceedings to decide whether the claim or claims have merit. The usual form of order is a final judgment affirming the decisions of the out of court decisionmaker. Appellees assert that
	OPINION/ORDER As was contracted to by the parties to the NCA. The rule is that [a]fter first ascertaining that there were significant contacts with the State of Georgia. Such that the choice of [Georgia] law was neither arbitrary nor constitutionally impermissible. Ct. 633 . . . (1981) . . .
	OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal from the approval of the settlement of a nationwide class action lawsuit against Prudential Life Insurance Company alleging deceptive sales practices affecting over 8 million claimants throughout thefifty states and the District of Columbia. The class is comprised of Prudential policyholders who allegedly were the victims of fraudulent and misleading sales practices employed by Prudential's sales force. Each cause of action is based on fraud or deceptive conduct. There are no allegations of personal injury. There are no futures classes. The relief awarded includes full compensatory damages consisting of what plaintiffs thought they were purchasing from the insurance agent. There is no cap on the amount of compensatory damages for those who qualify. Although punitive damages are not included in the settlement. Federal subject matter jurisdiction is properly grounded on the alleged violations of the federal securities laws. 6 supplemental jurisdiction is proper because all of the claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact.
	OPINION/ORDER We conclude that American did not have a legal obligation to negotiate with or recognize its collectivebargaining partners upon the expiration of their respective agreements. Because we conclude that the Board's findings of unlawful discrimination against union members in violation of section 8(a)(3) and (a)(1) are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. I. American is an Owing Mills. C.I.O. is a sprinkler fitters' union with near nationwide geographic jurisdiction. Which was accompanied by fringe benefit forms demonstrating majority union membership. Confirmed that a clear majority of the sprinkler 3 fitters in its employ have designated. Are members of. Are represented by . . . [American] therefore unconditionally acknowledges and confirms that Local 669 is the exclusive bargaining representative of its sprinkler fitter employees pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act. Which was then American's bargaining representative. Which was effective from June 1. American notified both Local 669 and 536 that it was withdrawing bargaining authority from the NFSA and intended thereafter to bargain independently with the unions.
	OPINION/ORDER At issue in this case is a claim by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the union) that it has a right to designate a representative on a safety committee established by its collective bargaining agreement with United Parcel Service (UPS). The district court held that
	ACTION CHILD TV V. FCC
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Officials of the State of Georgia appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of O.C.G.A. § 21 5 35 to prohibit a member of the General Assembly from accepting contributions for a campaign for federal office while the General Assembly is in session. Concluding that the Georgia statute is preempted by the Federal Election Campaign Act. I. Doug Teper is a member of the Georgia General Assembly who is contemplating a campaign for federal office. Teper's coplaintiffs are potential contributors to his federal campaign. Teper is precluded by a provision of the Georgia Ethics in Government Act. The Supreme Court has recognized that often in cases challenging rules governing elections there is not sufficient time between the filing of the complaint and the election to obtain judicial resolution of the controversy before the election. He would have been seriously disadvantaged relative to other federal candidates who are not state officials. He might have been faced with the dilemma of resigning from state office or foregoing his federal campaign.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Petitioner Goodwin Brodit was convicted in state court of continuous sexual abuse of a minor. CAMBRA PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was charged with violating section 288.5 by committing at least three lewd and lascivious acts with his stepniece while he was staying in the home of her mother and stepfather (Petitioner's brother). In an opinion that was published in part. Because the last reasoned state court decision was the California Court of Appeal's consolidated review of Petitioner's direct appeal and habeas petition. CAMBRA 16759 merits in state court unless the state court's decision was
	OPINION/ORDER Williams's appeal is now before the court. After receiving word via walkie talkie that the situation was secure. Who were roommates. Jessica answered the door and told Wynn that Madison was not home and Howard was asleep. Went back in
	OPINION/ORDER 1 in which the Supreme Court tightened the requirements for finding that a defendant has 1 This decision is frequently abbreviated as
	OPINION/ORDER The Beatties noticed several defects in it and in the way that it was set up. Fuqua initiated the present action by filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri claiming that it was libeled by the website and sign and seeking damages for the harm to its business reputation. Fuqua first contends that the district court erred in entering judgment for the Beatties because the court should have applied Iowa law rather than Missouri law to the case. The district court's choice of law is central to this case because judgment 2 as a matter of law would have been improper under Iowa law: Missouri law requires proof of actual damages in a libel case while Iowa law adheres to the rule that damages may be presumed in an action for libel per se. We believe that the path to the answer to the choice of law question is a good deal more complex than that. Should have applied the forum state's conflictof laws rules. The district court should have given effect to what is called the whole law of the forum.
	OPINION/ORDER Richard Bondi argue that Scheidler II invalidates all of the Hobbs Act counts in this case that were premised on the extortion of intangible property rights. Which can be satisfied regardless of whether the property right at issue is tangible or intangible. We remand Peter Gotti's case for consideration of resentencing pursuant to This decision is frequently abbreviated as
	OPINION/ORDER Jr. was convicted of the 1992 murders of Sheriff Steven Bennett and Deputy Sheriff Arthur Briscoe. His cabin was at the end of gravel road. Baze was a twice convicted felon and was wanted No. 03 5112 Baze v. Baze was in Ohio. Informed the police that she did not know where he was when they came to arrest her husband in mid January. She then phoned Baze to warn him that the police were looking for him. Deputy Sheriff Briscoe heard that Baze was back in town and proceeded to Baze's cabin to arrest him. Baze was inside. He later told the Louisville Courier Journal that he circled around to hide behind a stump behind the spot where the police would have to leave their cars. Baze's wife Becky was yelling at them from the porch of the cabin. They had their backs to the woods where Baze was hiding. Who was also at the house. Causing Bennett to turn his head back to his right to see where the gunfire was coming from. The policemen who were driving up the road to lend support testified that the first 6 10 shots they heard were rifle fire.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Elizabeth Lake is mentally retarded. She was permanently sterilized. Against the hospital where it was 2 performed. Although we agree with the District Court's decision that the Lakes' state claims are time barred by Pennsylvania's two year statute of limitations for personal injury suits. We do not agree with its conclusion that the federal civil rights claims are also untimely. Given our earlier decision that the mentally retar ded are a protected class for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. We must determine whether federal tolling doctrine will permit Elizabeth Lake to escape the bar of the statute of limitations on her federal claims. We will remand this case to the District Court to make this determination in further pr oceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Facts Plaintiff appellant Elizabeth Arnold Lake was born in Ventura. Until she was twelve. Elizabeth was taken to the hospital by her father and step mother. Despite the fact that Elizabeth was mentally retarded and allegedly illiterate.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: We are asked. Whether the Anti terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is unconstitutional. Numerous news reports were written on the crime. Crater and Robinson were tried for robbery. Robinson was convicted on all counts. After learning that Crater was reluctant to accept this deal. Finding no evidence that the state judge harbored
	OPINION/ORDER Was employed by Appellee New Jersey Natural Gas Company (
	LOHR V. MEDTRONIC, INC. This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Lohr v. We hold that Appellants' negligent manufacture and failure to warn claims are preempted and affirm their dismissal. We also hold that Appellants' negligent design and strict liability claims are not preempted and therefore reverse their dismissal.<p> I. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Because an understanding of the MDA's regulatory scheme is necessary to resolve the question of preemption. We begin with a brief outline of the Act.<p> A. <i>The Regulatory Scheme</i><p> <p> The market for medical devices was largely unregulated at the national level until the MDA's passage in 1976. The text of the MDA reveals two competing congressional purposes relevant to this case:<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/94-2516.opa.html">LOHR V. MEDTRONIC, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lohr v. We hold that Appellants' negligent manufacture and failure to warn claims are preempted and affirm their dismissal. We also hold that Appellants' negligent design and strict liability claims are not preempted and therefore reverse their dismissal.<p> I. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Because an understanding of the MDA's regulatory scheme is necessary to resolve the question of preemption. We begin with a brief outline of the Act.<p> A. <i>The Regulatory Scheme</i><p> <p> The market for medical devices was largely unregulated at the national level until the MDA's passage in 1976. The text of the MDA reveals two competing congressional purposes relevant to this case:<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/953492P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031531R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Order of Certification was prepared by Judge King and entered by Judge Motz. Kentucky law is applicable thereto. There is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Kentucky or the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.1 Pursuant to Rule 76.37(3). The privilege afforded by Rule 76.37 is invoked on this Court's own motion. (d) Names and addresses of counsel. (a) Question of Law The question of law being certified (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111062.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: There are three appeals before us in this case. General Motors appeals the denial of its pre trial motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Griffith's seatbelt claim is preempted by federal law. Tina Griffith was riding in the cab of a 1990 Chevrolet Silverado C1500 pickup truck equipped with a bench seat. Griffith was seated in the Silverado cab's front center seat. Her husband was *Honorable Donald P. Sitting by designation. 2 driving and her daughter was on her other side. The driver's and right passenger's positions were equipped with lap shoulder belts. The center position was equipped with a lap belt only. All passengers were wearing their seat belts. 1 that the Silverado's seatbelt system was defective because of the lap belt only design for the center occupant. Contending that this claim is impliedly pre Griffith also alleged that the Silverado had a defectively designed dashboard (inadequate padding). Which was promulgated by the Department of Transportation (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20407.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. DeShazo was a passenger. An employee of a BHOO subsidiary was driving. The district court dismissed that suit after determining that DeShazo was not a Jones Act seaman. Claiming that BHOO was liable for the negligence of its driver.2 The district court granted BHOO's motion for summary judgment. The DeShazos contend that Egyptian law should apply to their claims. 2 Claims against two other defendants were dismissed. 2 We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. The district court first concluded that DeShazo's claims were governed by Louisiana law. Section 184 states: Recovery for tort or wrongful death will not be permitted in any state if the defendant is declared immune from such liability by the workmen's compensation statute of a state under which the defendant is required to provide insurance against the particular risk and under which (a) the plaintiff has obtained an award for the injury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/022668p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff Celeslie Epps Malloy is a former employee of defendant Merck & Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/022668p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff Celeslie Epps Malloy is a former employee of defendant Merck & Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031448.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is now before us for the second time after a remand by the Supreme Court. The main question today is this: whether a federal court has jurisdiction over a local carrier's claim that a state utility commission misinterpreted interconnection agreement provisions on reciprocal compensation that are based on federal law. We hold that there is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That the action was not filed on a timely basis. The case will be remanded for further proceedings on the incumbent local carrier's contract misinterpretation claim. Telephone service in a local calling area was provided by a single local exchange carrier (local carrier). The duty to interconnect is coupled with other duties set forth in § 251. When the direction is reversed. The terms under which two competing local carriers interconnect their networks and provide for reciprocal compensation are set forth VERIZON MARYLAND v. Inc.) was providing local telephone service in Maryland. (We will refer to MFS Intelenet in the name of its successor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1402.html">WILLIAM O. SCHISM V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTY2OTItYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6692-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is intended to protect aquatic organisms from being harmed or killed by cooling water intake structures at large. While we conclude that certain aspects of the rule are based on a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Water Act and supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Several aspects of the rule are not consistent with the statute. Are not supported by sufficient evidence. Or were not properly subject to notice and comment. We therefore grant in part and deny in part the petitions for review and dismiss in part one aspect of the petitions for lack of jurisdiction because there is no final agency action to review. Circuit Judge: This is a case about fish and other aquatic organisms. 1 that is intended to protect fish. Concluding that certain aspects of the EPA's rule are based on a reasonable interpretation of the Act and supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Remanding several aspects of the rule because they are inadequately explained or inconsistent with the statute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043844p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The number of shares to be converted was controlled by a formula based on the current market value of the shares less a 17% discount for Berckeley. There is no dispute that Colkitt breached his end of the bargain. Asserts that he was justified in not complying with the Agreement because Berckeley made material misrepresentations in the Agreement 3 that violated federal securities laws and constituted common law fraud. We will affirm in part. Is the Chairman of the Board and principal shareholder of National Medical Financial Services Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0086p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from a decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to dismiss a class action lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. BACKGROUND Named plaintiffs are owners and lessors of Jeep Grand Cherokees. They allege that they were fraudulently induced to buy or lease their Grand Cherokees based on misrepresentations regarding Quadra Trac and seek to represent a class of Grand Cherokee owners and lessors similarly defrauded. Treble damages are required). The District Court's contrary finding is not supportable as a legal certainty. The opinion of the District Court is REVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 6 Rosen. Ky. 1989) (holding that amount in controversy is met in diversity action. 599 (D.D.C. 1972) (finding that the amount in controversy is clearly satisfied where plaintiffs seek to rescind the purchase of their homes and homes are worth a substantial sum). The amount in controversy is the full contract price paid by plaintiffs approximately $30. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/95-4114.wpd.html">OHLANDER V. LARSON<BR></A><BR> Was adopted by the signatory nations </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1289p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their respective responsibilities were delineated in an Environmental Agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1678.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> New Hampshire was on brief. The plaintiffs argue that the required disclosures are incriminating because they could lead to future prosecutions or perjury charges. They argue that the disclosures are compelled because completion of the treatment program is a de facto requirement for parole and for maintaining residence in desired prison housing. We affirm.</FONT></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A0FE639D42C945A5882571D300492BCF/$file/0535806.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.1 I. The current depth of the Columbia River navigation channel is 40 feet. Larger vessels with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/021899P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Believing the Awais' lawsuit was a nuisance suit. An appeal was filed. Almost two years after the Awais' claim was first made. About one and one half years after the suit was filed. Underwriters denied coverage in letters stating it was not waiving any other Policy provisions or defenses. We will affirm a district court's grant of summary judgment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/187277432C25C8998825703B0082E980/$file/0356349.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two provisions of these assumption agreements are at issue here: The parties selected New York law as governing their obligations and Peters and Osley waived the benefit of any statute of limitations defense. OSLEY because the suits were filed after the statute of limitations expired. Ruled the New York choice of law clause of the assumption agreements was enforceable and that New York law barred the waiver of the statute of limitations. Concluding ABF's claims were timebarred under the New York statute of limitations. The order granting dismissal was entered on April 10. Timeliness of Appeal [1] If an order is appealable. When judgment is entered for purposes of appeal depends upon Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. When a judgment is not set forth on a separate document. Then it is deemed entered for purposes of appeal 150 days from entry ABF CAPITAL CORP. v. Osley and Peters argue ABF's notices of appeal were untimely because the 180 day timetable was shortened after ABF prematurely moved to alter or amend judgment under Civil Rule 59(e) on April 24. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/17AF5540C492B4B488256E5A00707B03/$file/9936173.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to decide (1) whether an ambiguous tariff filed with the state utilities commission trumps the common law and statutory rule that the utility company. That the ordinances are preempted. It was required by statutory and common law to relocate or pay for relocation of its facilities. When city street improvements require the displacement of telecommu 1 The City of University Place has since revised its ordinances and was dismissed from the case. 5152 nications equipment located in the city's right of way. The current version reads in relevant part: When relocation or aerial to underground conversion of existing facilities is requested or required by law. The cost of constructing the new and removing the old facilities will be borne by the customer or others requesting the relocation or conversion. After this appeal was filed and partially briefed. The question before us is limited to who bears the costs of relocation prior to the effective date of the new statute. This stems from the conditional nature of a utility's right to have facilities in the public right of way. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAF6480E605ABF9688256BB5005BE541/$file/0099008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jennings claims his trial counsel was unreasonably and prejudicially ineffective under the standard set forth in Strickland v. He further argues that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective because of multi 6844 JENNINGS v. Jennings' fragile and failing mental health information that would have made a non first degree conviction reasonably probable we find that Mr. Jennings was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment during the guilt phase of his trial. Ligature marks suggesting she was bound with rope by her neck and ankles. Aspermatic semen containing antigens consistent with his blood was found on the victim. Jennings lost a knife whose blade length was consistent with the victim's stab wounds. Numerous sources noted that he was an habitual. Boechne was placed from the victim's home. (2) he was not competent to aid and assist counsel at trial. (3) he was impermissibly shackled at trial. The issues remaining on appeal are Mr. A generalized Certificate of Probable Cause (CPC) like that issued by the district court in this case is no longer sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/992692P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PVI) were minority stockholders in Martec. PVI gave notice to ratiopharm that it was exercising this option. PVI and ratiopharm were unable to agree on a price. The agreement further provided that if the proposed prices were within 10 percent of each other. The price was to be the average of the two. The parties were to select an independent expert to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/94FCAED573143C4B88256E5A00707BDE/$file/9936173.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 is amended as follows: 1. Second paragraph: Replace sentence reading: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/95-4084.htm">95-4084 -- BAUCHMAN V. WEST HIGH SCHOOL (SALT LAKE CITY) -- 12/18/1997<BR></A><BR> The Religion and Speech clauses of the Utah Constitution. <p> The constitutional issues raised in this appeal are issues of acute public interest issues which evoke diverse opinions and strong emotions. Bauchman's claims focus on religious neutrality in public schools only intensifies that interest and emotion.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A06A51AA36D752FF88256A38005BB2BF/$file/9936173.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to decide (1) whether an ambiguous tariff filed with the state utilities commission trumps the common law and statutory rule that the utility company. That the ordinances are preempted. It was required by statutory and common law to relocate or pay for relocation of its facilities. When city street improvements require the displacement of telecommu 1 The City of University Place has since revised its ordinances and was dismissed from the case. 5152 nications equipment located in the city's right of way. The current version reads in relevant part: When relocation or aerial to underground conversion of existing facilities is requested or required by law. The cost of constructing the new and removing the old facilities will be borne by the customer or others requesting the relocation or conversion. After this appeal was filed and partially briefed. The question before us is limited to who bears the costs of relocation prior to the effective date of the new statute. This stems from the conditional nature of a utility's right to have facilities in the public right of way. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-12623.man.html">BYRNE V. NEZHAT (8/14/2001, NO. 99-12623)<BR></A><BR> This is a simple medical malpractice case. It was brought. The discovery was to determine whether plaintiff's counsel had conducted an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D2D2B591E10EBBF88256A84007C9E01/$file/9936173.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 is amended as follows: 1. Second paragraph: Replace sentence reading: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-12623.man.html">BYRNE V. NEZHAT (8/14/2001, NO. 99-12623)<BR></A><BR> This is a simple medical malpractice case. It was brought. The discovery was to determine whether plaintiff's counsel had conducted an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/98-3080b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were David G. With them on the brief were Laura S. Owen moved in the district court to dismiss an indictment charging tax evasion and related crimes on the ground that the indictment was beyond the prosecutorial jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. It gave Indepen dent Counsel Starr jurisdiction to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law. Who are reasonably believed to have committed a violation of any federal criminal law arising out of such matters. Including persons or entities who have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or who have aided or abetted any federal offense. The Special Division ordered that the Independent Counsel have prosecutorial jurisdiction to fully investigate and prose cute the subject matter with respect to which the Attor ney General requested the appointment of independent counsel. These grants of authority were under 28 U.S.C. s 593(b)(1). Secret Service records indicate that James Riady had made several visits to the White House in the days before the payment to Hubbell was made. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D70EA6D7D78F28D288256E2400774CC0/$file/0216820.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/12/981108P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pony argues that Ohio law governs this case and that summary judgment was inappropriately granted before the completion of discovery. I. Pony is an Ohio corporation. (Equus of Missouri) is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in St. (Equus) is also a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in St. Zhou was employed in Pony's Return Merchandise Authorization (RMA) department as a data The Honorable Patricia A. Some of this work was performed while Zhou was on the job at Pony. Is also a former Pony employee in its shipping and warehouse department who left to work for Equus of Missouri. A court in which the action could have been brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (1996). We lack jurisdiction to review this transfer because it was made by a district court outside the Eighth Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1294 (1996). Which state law applies in a diversity case that has been transferred between federal courts is determined by the nature of the transfer. The forum state will apply its own procedural rules but must apply substantive law based on its conflicts of law doctrine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/84647CEAD734C49388256C060080D7C3/$file/0115835.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was shot and killed in front of the A/C Pizza and Deli in Sacramento. There were somewhere between 50 and 200 patrons at the location that night. Many of whom were drinking and partying outside the establishment at the time the shots were fired.1 Among those present were members of both the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117064.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. were convicted of a variety of federal offenses stemming from an affirmative action fraud scheme they perpetrated regarding federally funded road construction projects. I. Because the defendants are challenging their convictions. The FDOT was contractually obligated to ensure that at least 12% of the USDOT's funds ultimately went to 2 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/05-5388a.pdf">O:\SCHNABEL\2006-04 CASES\COBELL V. NORTON\COBEL OPINION DRAFT 7 FORMATTED (WITH MIKE MCGRAIL'S CHANGES).WPD<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Elliott H. Because we conclude the court's broad grant of equitable relief was an abuse of discretion. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Interior are currently the designated trustee delegates for the Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust. Interior is responsible for executing most of the government's trust duties. Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is responsible for managing the lands held by the trust. That some of Interior's employees were thwarting efforts to test the security of Interior's IT systems. The district court had erroneously shifted the burden of persuasion to Interior to show why disconnection was unnecessary. As material facts were in dispute and almost nine months had passed since a previous hearing. The class members argue that Interior's arguments are foreclosed by Cobell XII. We are not bound by the later opinions. The alleged conflict is illusory. Though some degree of confusion is understandable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/005251.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an extremely complicated motor vehicle dealer franchise termination case marked by disputes over what is known in the industry as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/983444P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was eligible for coverage under the terms of MedLife's group policy. I. BACKGROUND MedLife is a subsidiary of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Ohio. Was added to the policy group as a policyholder employer. Decedent was the chief executive officer of CEC Designs and several other unrelated business enterprises. Decedent was eligible for basic life insurance coverage in the amount of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/002185.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were subject to the class settlement. Appellants have presented this Court with thr ee issues on appeal. While Appellants are subject to the class settlement. Therefore are enjoined from pursuing any claims that fall within that settlement. They are not enjoined from pursuing. Are collectively referr ed to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6397.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Anderson asserted ten grounds in support of his claim that both his convictions and death sentences were constitutionally infirm. It is unnecessary to address the other contentions raised by Anderson on appeal. The order of the district court denying Anderson's 2254 habeas petition is hereby reversed and the matter is remanded to the district court to grant the writ consistent with this opinion. Are as follows: Between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m. on September 28. (2) he was denied fundamental fairness when the trail court restricted voir dire regarding a potential juror's ability to consider all three possible punishment options should the jury eventually find Anderson guilty on the murder charges. (3) his right to a fundamentally fair trial was violated because his trial was held in a courtroom where a mural over the bench depicted the biblical phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0620n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two government witnesses were former clients of Cordell's trial counsel. Each of the three was represented by Attorney Kenneth Lawson. Lawson learned that Bowens was planning to cooperate with the government and testify against Cordell. Cordell must show that counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable. The result of the proceeding would have been different.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1234.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bockius LLP</U> were on the brief. Snyder LLP</U> were on the brief. Inc.</U> were on the brief.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTU0MTlfc28ucGRm/05-5419_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/97-8127.htm">97-8127 -- WYOMING FARM BUREAU FEDERATION V. BABBITT -- 01/13/2000<BR></A><BR> Concluding they (1) are contrary to Congress' clear intent under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. (2) are contrary to the Department's own regulations extending Endangered Species Act protections to all individual animals within an area where experimental and nonexperimental populations may overlap. Factual Summary <p> Detailed facts underlying this appeal are set forth in <em>Wyoming Farm Bureau Fed'n v. One condition was the promulgation of nonessential experimental population rules to implement a wolf management program under section 10(j). Eventually will recolonize areas of Yellowstone and Idaho. (2) lone wolves have been confirmed to exist in or near the designated experimental population areas in Yellowstone and Idaho. Wounding or biting livestock on his land so long as the incident is reported within twenty four hours. <em>Id.</em> at 60264. The Parties <p> Appearing as Defendants/Appellants in this matter are the various governmental departments. Which were referred to this panel for resolution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-5219.htm">98-5219 -- INTERFAB LTD. V. VALIANT INDUSTRIER -- 08/03/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff InterFab. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8138B5E4723C6FE988257150005B327E/$file/0455324.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unable to obtain shelter on the night each was cited or arrested. I. Facts and Procedural Background The facts underlying this appeal are largely undisputed. Robert Lee Purrie ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-5418b.pdf">O:\CIRCULATED OPINIONS\NLRB V. COOPER TIRE\FINAL OPINION.WPD<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Nancy A. With him on the brief was Helene D. Circuit Judge: The threshold issue in this case is whether the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had jurisdiction to enforce subpoenas issued by the National Labor Relations Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1882.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Bird Bird & Hestres was on brief for appellants. Other relevant facts that fit better into the substantive legal discussion will be set out later in this opinion. Coverage under the Policy was predicated on Occidental's adherence to several conditions. Coverage was conditional on Occidental's providing Allstate with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7165a.html">BROWN ANTHONY ET AL V. PRO FTBL INC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1690.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Procter & Hoar were on brief for appellant. Seigle & Liston was on brief for appellee. Hammond ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1351.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Three cases are consolidated for purposes of this appeal. King now appeals the district court's: (1) determination that the noncompete provisions were enforceable. I PA is a professional consulting firm with offices in 20 countries and over 3400 employees. Although it is a New Jersey corporation with a human resources office in that state. PA is headquartered in Washington. King was a Senior Vice President ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0298p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have risen and fallen many times over the last 50 years. We have consolidated the appeals and now affirm. Not just those who had retired after each new collective bargaining agreement was made. Their spouses and dependents which is to say 472. These benefits are not inexpensive. No participant in this case whether that party agrees with the settlement or not offers any reason to believe these healthcare benefits will become cheaper over time. The car companies' capacity to pay them will become less burdensome in the future or the differential between what these American car companies pay in healthcare costs per vehicle and what their rivals from Japan (which has universal healthcare) pay will change any time soon. Making these obligations increasingly more difficult to meet are a growing ratio of retirees to active employees (four to one at GM in 2006 and two to one at Ford in 2005) and rapidly increasing healthcare costs. GM's accumulated obligations were expected to increase 22% between 2005 and 2009). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A658DE7863C879FC88256DC5007C804A/$file/0156491.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER Judges Canby and Berzon have voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing in part and to deny it in part. The petition of Nycomed for panel rehearing is granted in part and denied in part. Are withdrawn and the attached majority and dissenting opinions are ordered filed herewith. 15222 FREUND v. The attached opinion have been circulated to the full court. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. We affirm the judgment for compensatory damages and reverse the order overturning the punitive damages as a matter of law.2 We remand for the district court to The defendants against whom judgment was entered were Nycomed Amersham. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/564D4A580B7317BE88256CB0000D6EA2/$file/0270986.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Petitioners1 challenge the Department of Transportation's The petitioners in this case are Public Citizen. The combined effect of which will permit Mexico domiciled motor carriers to operate within the United States beyond the current limited border zones. The Department of Transportation decided that there was no need for further environmental analysis. It is useful to examine the legal and regulatory context in which they were promulgated. We will refer to them (as well as the Petitioners Intervenors. Our existing governmental institutions are not adequate to deal with the growing environmental problems and crises the Nation faces. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1501.html">PHONOMETRICS V. WESTIN<BR></A><BR> For defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Vito J. Page break after:avoid'>BACKGROUND</p> <p class=MsoBodyText><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>Westin is one of a number of hotel companies sued in the mid 1990s by Phonometrics.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In the actions. Of the hotel cases is the call cost register means. In part on the ground that the manufacturer introduced evidence that the accused peripheral systems did not and could not provide cost information about calls while the calls were in progress. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Phonometrics. Cir. 1998) (Table).<spa </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033972np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff Appellant PHP Liquidating LLC ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034792A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The names of these individuals are classified. As is much of the information pertinent to this appeal. We have avoided reference to classified material to the greatest extent possible. We are presented with questions of grave significance questions that test the commitment of this nation to an independent judiciary. We agree with the district court that the Government's proposed substitutions for the witnesses' deposition testimony are inadequate. We reverse the district court insofar as it held that it is not possible to craft adequate substitutions. Moussaoui was arrested for an immigration violation in midAugust 2001 and. Was indicted on several charges of conspiracy related to the September 11 attacks. The Government filed a superceding indictment charging Moussaoui with six offenses: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism tranThe name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/09C6001205381B7F88256ED900688888/$file/0250603.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were proper and are affirmed. The business lines of credit were. Unsecured loans for which the falsely identified business owner was personally liable. Six lines of credit were obtained in the names of four fictitious companies. Defendants were tried jointly. The government introduced testimony from all four individuals whose names and social security numbers were used to obtain the lines of credit. The forged documents that Defendants used to obtain the lines of credit were also introduced into evidence. Goodman testified that the information on the bankruptcy petition was incorrect. 000 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110215.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> KAHN CLERK Petitioner Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Leslie English by the Georgia state courts in 1987. We conclude that Crawford is not entitled to relief from his conviction or sentence. Facts Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted for the murder of his 29 month old niece. The defendant was married to. The defendant was intoxicated and. During this time the victim was in the care of Mrs. He stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-2047.htm">97-2047 -- ARAGON V. U.S. -- 06/23/1998<BR></A><BR> The base was redesignated Walker Air Force Base (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT=