 |
NIPPER V. SMITH
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Nipper v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="921"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/92-2588.opa.html">NIPPER V. SMITH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Nipper v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="921"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2001/01-10806.opn.html">DEJULIO V. GEORGIA (12/21/2001, NO. 01-10806)<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="921"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2001/01-10806.opn.html">DEJULIO V. GEORGIA (12/21/2001, NO. 01-10806)<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="908"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0741p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over Ortiz's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. 000 voters) were slated to be purged from Philadelphia's registration rolls for failing to vote. No appeal was taken. This request was denied by order of the district court on October 6. Ortiz's appeals were dismissed for failure to prosecute. A four day trial was held to determine whether a permanent injunction should issue. Recognizing that African American and Latino voters are purged at disproportionately higher rates than their white counterparts. A. A district court's conclusion that a challenged electoral practice has a discriminatory effect is a question of fact subject to review for clear error. 79 (1986) (recognizing that determination of whether or not political process is equally open to minority voters
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="895"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110806.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="889"></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-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1090.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Hardy Wood Tabor & Chudacoff was on brief. The House's head doorkeeper.1 The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of House Rule 45 a rule that purports to ban both lobbyists and lobbying from the floor of the House while the House is in session on its face and as applied. Among them was Rule 45 (the full text of which is reproduced in the appendix). Rule 45 banishes all lobbyists from the floor of the House (and the House lounge) while the House is in session. The rule permits members of the public to be on the House floor while the House is in session. The legislator plaintiffs have not appealed and. Government officials who lobby are given considerably more leeway. Are otherwise exempt from the Act's provisions. Neither elected officials nor other public employees are required to wear identification badges. The House provided two galleries overlooking the chamber which were accessible to all members of the public.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="794"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/06-5232a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Adina H. Martha Jane Perkins was on the brief for amici curiae Representatives Henry R. With her on the brief were Peter D. Walker were on the brief for amicus curiae CTIA The Wireless Association in support of appellee. Is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. Because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk's error with respect to one term. Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. The District Court held that Public Citizen's bicameralism claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Marshall Field & Co. v. Through their presiding officers
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="785"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1343.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue before us is whether this <hr> Clause precludes Plaintiff Rita Bastien's employment discrimination claim brought under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (the CAA). We hold that suit is not barred because the claim does not question the conduct of official Senate legislative business by Senator Campbell or his aides. Damages are paid from funds appropriated into the OOC's Treasury account. She was transferred to the Senator's Colorado Springs office. Where she was a District Director. She was terminated. Plaintiff responded that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="769"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/92-6257.man.html">SCLC V. SESSIONS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>SCLC v. Chief Judge:<p> <p> Appellant Southern Christian Leadership Conference (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="769"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/92-6257.man.html">SCLC V. SESSIONS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>SCLC v. Chief Judge:<p> <p> Appellant Southern Christian Leadership Conference (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-5087.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Melvin C. Of counsel on the brief was Thomas R. With him on the brief were Stuart E. The plaintiffs argue that the 1993 legislation breached the contract because it changed the tax laws to abrogate tax benefits to which they were entitled at the time the contract was executed and because the legislation specifically targeted the benefits they enjoyed under the contract. Holding that under the pre 1993 tax laws they were entitled to the tax benefits in question and that * Paul R. The plaintiffs have cross appealed from the court's denial of their request for additional damages. Fixed rate mortgages created when interest rates were low. The acquisition was effected through a contract between FSLIC. FSLIC bound itself to make assistance payments to Texas Trust in an amount equal to the difference between the book basis of the covered assets and the value of those assets when they were sold or written down. The Consolidated Group expected to be able to take deductions for the built in losses on the covered assets as those assets were liquidated or written down.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="747"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5095a.html">CHENOWETH HELEN V. CLINTON, WILLIAM J.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief <p> were <i>Lois J. All of <p> whom are Members of the United States House of Represen <p> tatives. The Representatives sought a declaration that the <p> issuance of the AHRI was unlawful and an injunction against <p> its implementation.<p> <p> The district court granted the President's motion to dis <p> miss. Concluding that the injury the Representatives claim to <p> have suffered the deprivation of their right as Members of <p> the Congress to vote on (or. Against) the <p> AHRI is
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0143p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are African American and Caucasian voters residing in Hamilton. (2) the use of error prone voting equipment deprives voters of their due process right to have their votes counted accurately. Some commentators have suggested that these types of voting rights challenges are taking us into a brave new world. Others suggest that they are simply variations of old challenges. Code § 3506.15.1 The Secretary has certified two general types of equipment: (1)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="731"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/98-5095a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Lois J. All of whom are Members of the United States House of Represen tatives. The Representatives sought a declaration that the issuance of the AHRI was unlawful and an injunction against its implementation. Concluding that the injury the Representatives claim to have suffered the deprivation of their right as Members of the Congress to vote on (or. Against) the AHRI is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="731"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/06-5113a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Mark D. Shriver III were on the brief for amicus curiae National Treasury Employees Union in support of appellees. Our limited judicial task is to determine whether the Department of Defense has acted consistently with its statutory authority in promulgating certain regulations. The primary legal question we must decide is whether the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 authorizes DoD to curtail collective bargaining rights that DoD's civilian employees otherwise possess under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. We will refer only to DoD and not also to OPM.). The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="725"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6DEA7C7711AA444488256E6F005BA923/$file/0235691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court determined that section 2 was a constitutional exercise of Congress's powers under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Blaine County challenges both of those rulings.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is vast and sparsely populated. 009 residents are spread out over 4. The American Indian population is geographically concentrated with 80 percent of the County's American Indians residing on the Fort Belknap Reservation. No American Indian was ever elected to the Blaine County Commission under the at large voting system. Although we agree that the district court's evidentiary rulings were erroneous in one limited respect. We ultimately conclude that this error was harmless. 1 UNITED STATES v. Each commissioner is elected by a majority vote of the entire county. The County moved for summary judgment on the ground that section 2 was unconstitutional because it exceeded the scope of Congress's powers to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The court found that American Indian voters were sufficiently geographically compact and politically cohesive to elect a County Commissioner of their choice.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-13138.man.html">MADE IN THE UNITED STATES FOUND. V. UNITED STATES (2/27/2001, NO. 99-13138)<BR></A><BR>
Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913138.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913138.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/99-13138.man.html">MADE IN THE UNITED STATES FOUND. V. UNITED STATES (2/27/2001, NO. 99-13138)<BR></A><BR>
Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/001268.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That district courts have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. Is unable to do so. The statute provides in pertinent part: A person who is prohibited from possessing. The Secretary may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability. Are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Secretary may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. 18 U.S.C. Or receiving firearms that have traveled in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. A convicted felon can regain his firearms privileges if the jurisdiction in which he was convicted expunges his conviction. Rice was the first circuit court opinion to address whether the appropriations ban enables felons to seek the restoration of their firearms privileges in federal court despite ATF 's inability to review their applications.
</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.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-7.gif" ALT="706"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971604.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Challenging the FDA's jurisdiction over tobacco products and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.1 Plaintiffs then filed a 1 When the complaint was filed on August 10. All references in this opinion are to the final version of the rule published in the Federal Register on August 28. They have been added for emphasis unless otherwise indicated. 13 motion for summary judgment in the district court. Jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) and 1292(b). We are of opinion that the FDA lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. 1996 regulations of tobacco products are thus invalid. All 50 States have already banned the sale of tobacco to minors under state law. Tobacco products fit within these definitions because they are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept96/94-1471.wpd.html">SANCHEZ V. STATE OF COLORADO<BR></A><BR>
The district court denied them declaratory and injunctive relief concluding the Gingles' quantum of proof was unmet. We conclude plaintiffs have (2) Because of the concurrence of oral argument in this case and those the Supreme Court heard. Are Hispanic residents and registered voters in Center. A flatland whose western boundary is the San Juan Mountains. On its eastern boundary are the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Although many of these early landowners were later dispossessed of their land. The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (the Commission) was reconvened to redraw the boundaries of state senate and house legislative districts to reflect the 14% increase in the state's population from 2.
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/952608P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were declared constitutional by the district court. We conclude that section 130.100 is unconstitutional and reverse the judgment of the district court. Will have an aggregate value in excess of the limits stated in section 1. They are not irreconcilably inconsistent.
</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.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-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0740p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></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-6.gif" ALT="662"></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-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1938p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Currently before us are consolidated appeals filed by individual Senators who challenge the district court's rulings rejecting the claims of nonjusticiability. Which was filed by the individual Justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and employees of the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts and which concerns the termination of Larsen's medical benefits. Was argued before the same panel of this court. Is the subject of a separate opinion. I. Background Larsen was first elected to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1977 for a ten year term beginning January 1978. Was reelected for a second ten years as of 1988. They were that. Larsen was formally charged with violating and conspiring to violate the Controlled Substances Act. Larsen was convicted by a jury of two counts of conspiring to violate the Controlled Substances Act. They included (I) according special treatment to certain petitions for allowance of appeal in cases where his friends were counsel of record who had made political contributions to him.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/97-2540.op3.html">SOLOMON V. LIBERTY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (8/10/2000, NO. 97-2540)<BR></A><BR>
We hold that the district court properly denied relief and therefore affirm.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts and procedural history of this case have been developed extensively in two previous panel opinions. The county is divided into five residential districts. A run off primary election is held. Because most candidates in Liberty County are Democrats. Therefore sought an injunctive order dividing the county into five single member districts.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/97-2540.op3.html">SOLOMON V. LIBERTY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (8/10/2000, NO. 97-2540)<BR></A><BR>
We hold that the district court properly denied relief and therefore affirm.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts and procedural history of this case have been developed extensively in two previous panel opinions. The county is divided into five residential districts. A run off primary election is held. Because most candidates in Liberty County are Democrats. Therefore sought an injunctive order dividing the county into five single member districts.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011151.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 25 the reference to
</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.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-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/033905P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Leavitt has been appointed United States Secretary of Health and Human Services and is substituted as appellee under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). 1 St. DRG Payments and Bundling Medicare is health insurance funded by the federal government for the aged and disabled. The reimbursement rates were set according to historic costs in a given region and applied on a prospective basis to the hospitals during the upcoming fiscal year. These new payments were made according to patients' diagnoses. Treating hospitals would get a payment that was tied to the patient's diagnosis related group (DRG). Posed significant problems to hospitals that had followed a practice of having ancillary providers furnish services and seek reimbursement from Medicare separately because their accounting and billing systems would have to be changed. Which was later included in the U.S. The part B payments to the ancillary providers were not calculated according to the patient's DRG. Those payments were calculated on a reasonable cost basis.
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962788.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:1 Three cases presenting the same or similar issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity were consolidated and are addressed in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are whether Congress abrogated States' Eleventh Amendment immunity for suits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962788.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: 1 1 Judge Edmondson announces the judgment for the Court in this 3 Three cases presenting the same or similar issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity were consolidated and are addressed in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are whether Congress abrogated States' Eleventh Amendment immunity case. We agree with the Northern District of Alabama that suits in by private parties for against ADEA States federal court 6 violations are prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. The cases were appealed for us to decide whether Congress abrogated sovereign immunity when it enacted the relevant statutes. 3 Because this appeal presents only questions of law. This appeal is properly before this Court under the collateral order doctrine. The facts of each Plaintiff's claim will not be discussed. Discussion A district a court's order to denying dismiss or a granting motion complaint against a State based on the Eleventh Amendment's grant of sovereign immunity is reviewed by this court de novo. 2507 n.7 (1980) (Eleventh Amendment principles are not applicable to suits in state court.). 10 4 Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause could.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-2788.man.html">KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:<A HREF=
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-2788.man.html">KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:<A HREF=
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061636p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fowler Nash alleged that she was discharged from her position as a legislative assistant to Harhai in violation of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Caucus argued that it was entitled to absolute legislative immunity as Fowler Nash was employed as a legislative assistant. Her firing was therefore necessarily
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/031722p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that Representatives DeWeese and Veon's allocation of district office funds from the legislature's appropriation was a legislative act. Thus they are entitled to legislative immunity. Decides how this appropriation is allocated among individual representatives. Which is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Arguing that her claims are barred both by the doctrines of legislative immunity and sovereign immunity. The Court indicated that Representatives DeWeese and Veon are not protected by legislative or sovereign immunity. That Youngblood's constituent co plaintiffs have a legally cognizable injury sufficient to confer individual and associational standing. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review We generally do not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review interlocutory decisions such as the denial of a motion to dismiss. We have recognized exceptions to this rule. One well established exception is for orders denying motions to dismiss for reasons of immunity. The Collateral Order Doctrine excepts a
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052361p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Was appointed poet laureate of New Jersey in July 2002. There is hereby established the New Jersey William Carlos Williams Citation of Merit to be presented to a distinguished poet from New Jersey who shall be considered the poet laureate of the State of New Jersey for a period of two years. Shall biennially appoint and convene a panel of four persons who are either distinguished poets or persons who represent a range of stylistic approaches in the field of poetry. In part:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1619p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court's conclusion that appellants failed to establish a section 2 violation was not clearly erroneous. Its legal conclusions were sound. We will affirm. We have jurisdiction over this timely filed appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. So our review of the district court's legal analysis is plenary. Our review of the court's factual findings is governed by the clearly erroneous standard.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/97-2540.man.html">SOLOMON V. LIBERTY COUNTY COMM'RS (2/3/1999, NO. 97-2540)<BR></A><BR>
Reaffirmed the prior panel's opinion that further findings of fact were warranted. <EM>See Solomon II. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> Liberty County is located in northwest Florida. It is especially rural. 982 or 17.63 percent are black.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/97-2540.man.html">SOLOMON V. LIBERTY COUNTY COMM'RS (2/3/1999, NO. 97-2540)<BR></A><BR>
Reaffirmed the prior panel's opinion that further findings of fact were warranted. <EM>See Solomon II. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> Liberty County is located in northwest Florida. It is especially rural. 982 or 17.63 percent are black.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/006634.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that Wessel's claim was barred by the State's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Wessel was committed to the custody of the Maryland Division of Corrections. All inmates are awarded a certain number of good conduct credits at the outset of their sentences. Completing a
</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/EE6DDDB891D2305288256C8500586164/$file/0016423o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because of the respect that we owe to and have for the Senate. We are constrained to explain the reasons for our denial of intervention. This case is more in line with Fed. There is a special statute that applies to this motion. There was a resolution here. The statute goes on to provide that Counsel shall intervene upon appropriate direction when
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1429.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. This case is the sequel to United States v. Woodward claims that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the four counts. Woodward was first elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1977. He was assigned to the Joint Committee on Insurance (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982174.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/29CF79BB69A569228825726C00839C81/$file/0670430.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Salmon and steelhead1 are two of the great natural A steelhead is a rainbow trout which has spent part of its life at sea. As these dams were constructed. Only about one million fish return for spawning that is essential to the species' survival in the Columbia River system. The Bonneville Power Administration (
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1400.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pollock & Sheehan were on brief. Dean & Wilder were on brief. This determination is tinged with more than the usual quotient of public interest. We set aside the district court's determination that the parties' dispute over the applicability of state jurisdiction is not yet ripe for adjudication and hold that Congress's grant of jurisdiction to the state in the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1978. That the Narragansetts have concurrent jurisdiction over. Are entitled to invoke the Gaming Act. The former is impliedly repealed. We affirm both the district court's directive that Rhode Island enter into 2 good faith negotiations to draft a tribal state compact under which gaming operations can be mounted and its refusal to grant relief to various governmental figures and entities who have challenged the Tribe's entitlement to the extraordinary prophylaxis of the Gaming Act. THE SETTLEMENT LANDS We begin with a thumbnail sketch of how the land mass that is the breeding ground for this dispute came to be held in trust for the Tribe.
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0134p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This decision was originally issued on April 3. It is now being issued to incorporate Judge Jones' separate concurring opinion. * 1 2 Rural West Tennessee. This conclusion is contrary to the Supreme Court's interpretation of § 2. The ability of blacks to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/01-1258a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2492.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Duncan</U> were on brief. <U>Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/11/982351P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The limits were to become effective on January 1. Or for any office where the population of the electoral district is 250. Or for any office where the population of the electoral district is 100. Or for any office where the population of the electoral district is less than 100. It is obiter dictum and is not binding on the Court in this case. 3 2 SMG. Because we lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal if both SMG and Fredman are without standing. The State asserts that the injuries alleged are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-3105a.html">USA V. DURENBERGER DAVID F<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1678p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was abducted. The members of the community were unaware of the accused murderer's history. Forty nine states had adopted sex offender registration laws and thirty two states maintained some form of community notification program. 6 We have before us challenges to the constitutionality of the notification requirements of New Jersey's Megan's Law based on the Ex Post Facto. The issues before us are difficult but relatively narrow. We are not called upon to decide whether Megan's Law can constitutionally be applied to one who has committed one of the designated sex crimes after its enactment. Is it our responsibility to determine whether the policy judgments reflected in Megan's Law are prudent ones. Public reaction to Megan's murder was intense. The Law and Public Safety Committee held a hearing upon pending legislation that pre dated Megan's Law and would have required victim notification on the release of offenders. Registration and community notification bills identical to their General Assembly counterparts were introduced in the Senate on September 12.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-10640.man.html">LYONS V. GEORGIA PAC. CORP. SALARIED EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN (8/11/2000, NO. 99-10640)<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="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-10640.man.html">LYONS V. GEORGIA PAC. CORP. SALARIED EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN (8/11/2000, NO. 99-10640)<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="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5153.html">AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH V. US<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was J. Of counsel on the brief were Thomas R. With him on the brief was David M. Of counsel on the brief were Robert D. With him on the brief were Elizabeth A. With him on the brief was Clarence T. Of counsel on the brief were L. Was void ab initio. We now hold that the contract was not void. Which were difficult to monitor using available technology and equipment. The contract was a
</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/03/03-2323.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Plaintiffs are three federally recognized Indian Tribes with reservations in sparsely populated areas of northern Wisconsin (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-9566.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the EEOC's recognition of such a right violates the expressed will of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The Board further argues that the EEOC erred in its determination that one of the Administrative Law Judge's (
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1953.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States Department of Justice were on brief. Now is subject to deportation because he has committed crimes of moral turpitude such as theft. While Goncalves' application was still pending. That at least those aliens whose applications were pending on the date of AEDPA's enactment. Goncalves' application was dismissed without being heard by the BIA and he was taken into custody by federal officials. This he was required to do by the precedent of this court. Was correct in the interpretation of the statute. He should have filed in the court of appeals. Her decision is entitled to deference. The first is which federal court. That Congress neither explicitly nor by implication repealed the grant of jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. 2241 to issue writs of habeas corpus to persons in federal custody which the federal district courts have had since 1789 and which has always been available in immigration cases. If there is jurisdiction. Is of a type traditionally resolved by the courts. The second major set of issues addresses the merits: is the Attorney General correct in her interpretation that AEDPA 440(d).
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/991190P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Carl Brown and Harold
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1569.html">TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION NETWORK V. DONALD EVANS<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5161.html">TERRAN MICHELE V. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief were <U>Helene M. Terran argues that the Vaccine Injury Table applied by the Special Master to her claim is invalid because the statutory scheme pursuant to which it was created is unconstitutional. Which was promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 14(c) and which became effective on March 10. The relevant facts are not in dispute. Julie Terran was born on February 10. Was discharged in good health from the hospital the next day. Julie received her first diphtheria pertussis tetanus (
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/98-6069.man.html">GARRETT V. UNIV. OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM BD. OF TRUSTEES (10/26/1999, NO. 98-6069)<BR></A><BR>
They raise the question that is being litigated in various jurisdictions of whether a state is immune from suits by state employees asserting rights under certain federal laws. The three statutes here are: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We hold that the state is not immune from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and reverse the judgments of the district court against plaintiffs Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash as to those two statutes and remand the two cases for further proceedings. The state is immune from suit under the specific provisions at issue here. <A HREF=
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/98-6069.man.html">GARRETT V. UNIV. OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM BD. OF TRUSTEES (10/26/1999, NO. 98-6069)<BR></A><BR>
They raise the question that is being litigated in various jurisdictions of whether a state is immune from suits by state employees asserting rights under certain federal laws. The three statutes here are: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We hold that the state is not immune from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and reverse the judgments of the district court against plaintiffs Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash as to those two statutes and remand the two cases for further proceedings. The state is immune from suit under the specific provisions at issue here. <A HREF=
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2034A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Shore</U> were on brief for appellants.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2445.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042096p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge Appellants in this case are owners and operators of industrial facilities located throughout the United States that are contaminated with hazardous waste. They admit they are responsible for some of the contamination at these sites (which they cleaned up voluntarily). Allege the United States 3 Government is also responsible for some part. The Supreme Court held that § 113 by its express terms is not available to parties that clean up sites voluntarily. Because appellants are themselves partly responsible for the contamination at the subject sites. Their cleanups were voluntary. It is necessary first to understand the applicable legal framework. CERCLA is a broad remedial statute that
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0327p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clause 4 of the United States Constitution is mandatory. The difficulty presented by redistricting that was to take effect for the regularly scheduled election in 2002. The 107th Congress was scheduled to adjourn on October 3. Tim Ryan was elected to the House by the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1689.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 35. Line 4 change
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-5128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Thomas P. Of counsel on the brief were John D. Of counsel was Gary L. With him on the brief were Stuart E. The judgment is affirmed. The terms and conditions were set forth in an Assistance Agreement between Nationwide and the FSLIC. FSLIC would provide tax exempt reimbursement of 90% of each covered asset that was liquidated at a loss. In that the 03 5128 2 10% reduction in loss reimbursement was one third of the 30% tax rate set in the Assistance Agreement. The transfer to Nationwide of the five Southwest Plan thrift institutions was completed in December 1988.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9F7D3A2F2C0D6DFC88256A850083C267/$file/9935337.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue in this case is whether state legislation allowing people to vote by mail over an extended period violates a federal statute requiring that the election shall be held on a particular day. No facts are in dispute. The State of Oregon prevailed on summary judgment.3 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Con 2 The suit is pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The manner of appointment is now by popular election but was formerly by the legislatures of some states. 8896 gress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations. Senators and the President and Vice President were legislated as part of Reconstruction in the 1870's. Is established as the day for the election. Were not covered by this election day provision. Because until the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified. They were selected by state legislatures. Congress provided that they should be elected at the same time as Representatives were elected.9 The law remains the same today. Cl. 3. 7 3 U.S.C. § 1. 8 2 U.S.C. § 7. 9 2 U.S.C. § 1. 8897 the first Monday in November is the day when presidential and vice presidential electors
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8055D20C0177649188256E5A00707BE1/$file/9935337.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue in this case is whether state legislation allowing people to vote by mail over an extended period violates a federal statute requiring that the election shall be held on a particular day. No facts are in dispute. The State of Oregon prevailed on summary judgment.3 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Con 2 The suit is pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The manner of appointment is now by popular election but was formerly by the legislatures of some states. 8896 gress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations. Senators and the President and Vice President were legislated as part of Reconstruction in the 1870's. Is established as the day for the election. Were not covered by this election day provision. Because until the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified. They were selected by state legislatures. Congress provided that they should be elected at the same time as Representatives were elected.9 The law remains the same today. Cl. 3. 7 3 U.S.C. § 1. 8 2 U.S.C. § 7. 9 2 U.S.C. § 1. 8897 the first Monday in November is the day when presidential and vice presidential electors
</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.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/05-5352a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Howard M. With her on the brief was Ellen Durkee. Seidman were on the brief for appellees Safari Club International. The United States is a party to international conventions with Canada and Mexico for the protection of migratory birds. The Reform Act amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act so that the statute applies
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/981494P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. For the legal analysis supporting its decision that the amendment was unconstitutional on Article I. The Missouri Amendment orders members of Missouri's congressional delegation to use their authority to amend the United States Constitution Similar initiatives were on the ballot in thirteen other states in November 1996. Missouri have been invalidated in federal and state courts on various state and federal constitutional grounds. Yet another similar initiative was passed in California in June 1998. (2) failure to second it if a second is lacking. (8) failure to ensure that all votes on term limits are recorded and available to the public. It orders that those who do not take the pledge have the label
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/95-9595.man.html">BOWN V. GWINNETT COUNTY SCH. DIST.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bown v. Conduct a brief period of quiet reflection for not more than 60 seconds with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled.<p> <p> (b) The moment of quiet reflection authorized by subsection (a) of this Code section is not intended to be and shall not be conducted as a religious service or exercise but shall be considered as an opportunity for a moment of silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.<p> <p> (c) The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section shall not prevent student initiated voluntary school prayers at schools or school related events which are nonsectarian and nonproselytizing in nature.<p> <p> O.C.G.A.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2243.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<U>Senior Circuit Judges</U>.</FONT></P> <BR WP=
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/95-9595.man.html">BOWN V. GWINNETT COUNTY SCH. DIST.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bown v. Conduct a brief period of quiet reflection for not more than 60 seconds with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled.<p> <p> (b) The moment of quiet reflection authorized by subsection (a) of this Code section is not intended to be and shall not be conducted as a religious service or exercise but shall be considered as an opportunity for a moment of silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.<p> <p> (c) The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section shall not prevent student initiated voluntary school prayers at schools or school related events which are nonsectarian and nonproselytizing in nature.<p> <p> O.C.G.A.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2186EB.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
407 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2005).</p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote2 = '<span class=
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/65F252E2DE963B3588256D9D0069D9B5/$file/0035924.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this case are two of the provisions contained in that initiative. The district court's factual findings are adequately supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. Two sections that were subsequently enacted as Mont. To a candidate are limited as follows: (i) for candidates filed jointly for the office of governor and lieutenant governor. It increased the amount that political parties are permitted to contribute. A candidate for the state house of representatives may receive no more M.C.A. § 13 37 216(3) reads:
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/728D5F3B6D62954888256C3E00584505/$file/0035924.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this case are two of the provisions contained in that initiative. The district court's factual findings are adequately supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. Two sections that were subsequently enacted as Mont. To a candidate are limited as follows: (i) for candidates filed jointly for the office of governor and lieutenant governor. It increased the amount that political parties are permitted to contribute. A candidate for the state house of representatives may receive no more M.C.A. § 13 37 216(3) reads:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2332.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that he
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE0NTdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1457_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The finding of guilt is affirmed. The sentence is vacated. The cause is remanded for resentencing. Judge) from informing the jury about the mandatory ten year sentence that would be imposed on defendant if he were convicted of the advertising offense. After the writ was issued. (3) the constitutionality under the Eighth Amendment of the statute requiring the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence.1 Though the issue was not The E ighth Am endm ent to the Constitution provide s in relevant part that
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE0NTcgd2l0aCBlcnJhdGEucGRm/03-1457%20with%20errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The finding of guilt is affirmed. The sentence is vacated. The cause is remanded for resentencing. Judge) from informing the jury about the mandatory ten year sentence that would be imposed on defendant if he were convicted of the advertising offense. After the writ was issued. (3) the constitutionality under the Eighth Amendment of the statute requiring the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence.1 Though the issue was not The E ighth Am endm ent to the Constitution provide s in relevant part that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-8884.opa.html">ASKEW V. CITY OF ROME<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Askew v. Senior District Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the thorough Order (opinion) entered on June 25. Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant City of Rome's methods of electing its City Commission and Board of Education are intentionally discriminatory against Rome's African American community and have the effect of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/96-9284.man.html">BROOKS V. MILLER (10/30/1998, NO. 96-9284)<BR></A><BR>
The complaint was certified as a class action on behalf of all present and future black registered voters in Georgia. The district court ruled that Georgia's majority vote provision for primary elections is constitutional and does not violate § 2.</P> <P><CENTER>I. What Plaintiffs do challenge is the majority vote requirement for primary elections for single member. The United States Department of Justice filed a parallel case which was consolidated with this action. The district court examined evidence relating to the process by which the majority vote provision was enacted into law to determine whether it was passed for a racially discriminatory purpose. The following is a summary of the district court's factual findings.</P> <P> A. <EM>Discriminatory Purpose</EM></P> <P> The district court acknowledged Georgia's long history of racial discrimination at all levels of government. </EM> 203 F.Supp. 158 (N.D.Ga.1962).</P> <P> The majority vote provision at issue in this case was enacted as part of a sweeping election reform bill signed into law in 1964 by then Governor Carl E.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19969284.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The complaint was certified as a class action on behalf of all present and future black registered voters in Georgia. The district court ruled that Georgia's majority vote provision for primary elections is constitutional and does not violate § 2. What Plaintiffs do challenge is the majority vote requirement for primary elections for single member. The United States Department of Justice filed a parallel case which was consolidated with this action. The district court relied on testimony presented at the four day bench trial in 1996 and testimony presented at the hearing held Georgia is one of nine states with a majority vote requirement for primary elections. The district court examined evidence relating to the process by which the majority vote provision was enacted into law to determine whether it was passed for a racially discriminatory purpose. The following is a summary of the district court's factual findings. The majority vote provision at issue in this case was enacted as part of a sweeping election reform bill signed into law in 1964 by then Governor Carl E.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/96-9284.man.html">BROOKS V. MILLER (10/30/1998, NO. 96-9284)<BR></A><BR>
The complaint was certified as a class action on behalf of all present and future black registered voters in Georgia. The district court ruled that Georgia's majority vote provision for primary elections is constitutional and does not violate § 2.</P> <P><CENTER>I. What Plaintiffs do challenge is the majority vote requirement for primary elections for single member. The United States Department of Justice filed a parallel case which was consolidated with this action. The district court examined evidence relating to the process by which the majority vote provision was enacted into law to determine whether it was passed for a racially discriminatory purpose. The following is a summary of the district court's factual findings.</P> <P> A. <EM>Discriminatory Purpose</EM></P> <P> The district court acknowledged Georgia's long history of racial discrimination at all levels of government. </EM> 203 F.Supp. 158 (N.D.Ga.1962).</P> <P> The majority vote provision at issue in this case was enacted as part of a sweeping election reform bill signed into law in 1964 by then Governor Carl E.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19969284.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The complaint was certified as a class action on behalf of all present and future black registered voters in Georgia. The district court ruled that Georgia's majority vote provision for primary elections is constitutional and does not violate § 2. What Plaintiffs do challenge is the 2 majority vote requirement for primary elections for single member. The United States Department of Justice filed a parallel case which was consolidated with this action. The district court examined evidence relating to the process by which the majority vote provision was enacted into law to determine whether it was passed for a racially discriminatory purpose. The district court considered evidence presented on the issue of whether the Georgia is one of nine states with a majority vote requirement for primary elections. The following is a summary of the district court's factual findings. The majority vote provision at issue in this case was enacted as part of a sweeping election reform bill signed into law in 1964 by then Governor Carl E.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-8884.opa.html">ASKEW V. CITY OF ROME<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Askew v. Senior District Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the thorough Order (opinion) entered on June 25. Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant City of Rome's methods of electing its City Commission and Board of Education are intentionally discriminatory against Rome's African American community and have the effect of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/013720p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that the Copyright Office's rulemaking 4 with respect to the Internet
</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/DBA1F2A485A1FBBF88256D9B005A02F1/$file/0235030.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One is that signatures in support of the initiative must be collected from six percent of the qualified voters in each of at least half of the state's counties. This power is known as the initiative. CENARUSSA 13129 Idaho Legislature has enacted enabling legislation that defines Idaho's procedures for conducting initiative and referendum elections.2 Plaintiff Idaho Coalition United for Bears is an organization that seeks to advance its supporters' goals through the initiative process. Three individuals who have organized petition drives in attempts to place initiatives on the ballot in past years. The proposed initiative is then delivered to the Secretary of State. Once the ballot titles are prepared. Petitioners are then free to circulate the petition. Petitions are due at the expiration of eighteen months or on the last day of April in the year in which the proposed initiative would appear on the ballot. Idaho's population is unevenly distributed throughout its counties: 60% of its population resides in just nine of its 44 counties.4 For this reason.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/003142.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to review the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2352.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Woods LLP</SPAN> was on brief. P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. The basic question posed by this action is whether political association rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States act as a check on a legislature enacting a statute reorganizing an administrative agency and a check on the executive who signed and then implemented the law. There is no claim that the governor. There was also a system. Each Commissioner was appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. Each Commissioner was given authority to make a final adjudication of the claims before him or her independently. Law 63 did not explicitly state what would happen to the hearing examiners.</P> <P> There was another change in control of the executive branch of the Commonwealth in November 2000. Whose term ends on December 31 of the year in which general elections are held). It states that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-3448.opa.html">JOHNSON V. DESOTO CTY. BD. OF COMM'NS.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Johnson v. Florida School Board appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment against the School Board and in favor of the plaintiffs who are four black registered voters in DeSoto County. 42 U.S.C.A.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943448.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Florida School Board appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment against the School Board and in favor of the plaintiffs who are four black registered voters in Honorable Charles E. The district court's judgment is based upon its holding that the Florida Legislature's intent in enacting the 1947 Act was to discriminate against blacks. That holding is in turn premised upon the court's conclusion that two decisions of this Court involving the same state statute but different counties preclude as a matter of law any contrary finding about the intent behind the legislation. In Part II.B we explain why that holding is error. A holding that intent alone is sufficient to establish a claim under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The district court held that even if some proof of discriminatory results is necessary to establish a § 2 violation. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment insofar as the Board of County Commissioners election is concerned. The district court has stayed the trial involving the Board of County Commissioners while this appeal is pending. 1 results.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-3448.opa.html">JOHNSON V. DESOTO CTY. BD. OF COMM'NS.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Johnson v. Florida School Board appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment against the School Board and in favor of the plaintiffs who are four black registered voters in DeSoto County. 42 U.S.C.A.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0240p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Albeit in an election in which federal offices were on the ballot. Slone argues that if section 1973i(c) is found to reach the conduct to which he The Honorable David M. The statute is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress' enumerated powers. Slone contends that even if his conviction is not vacated. It was charged.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5016a.html">JOHN H. MCBRYDE V. COMMITTEE TO REVIEW CIRCUIT COUNCIL CONDUCT<BR></A><BR>
Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Et al.<span style=
</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.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/94-6325.wpd.html">PANHANDLE E. PIPELINE CO. V. OKLAHOMA<BR></A><BR>
When it was effectively repealed and replaced by legislation that is not challenged by these parties. Because we agree that SB 160 is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Conclude that SB 160 is preempted by federal law insofar as it burdens interstate purchasers of natural gas. We further conclude that the invalid provisions of SB 160 are not severable from the remainder of the statute. Thus we conclude that SB 160 is unconstitutional in its entirety. Background The Appellee pipeline companies (
</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=02-1436.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Frontera Suau</SPAN> was on brief. S Guillemard Noble</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE=
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051650p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Commercial truckers who cross the many bridges that connect New Jersey and Pennsylvania have turned to the federal courts in this action to complain that the tolls being charged on certain of those bridges are excessive. We must decide at the threshold whether the truckers have a private right of action under § 508 to maintain this suit. The District Court held that the truckers have neither an express nor an implied right of action. The
</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/Aug2000/993877.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon to address the applicability of the ADEA when an employer offers its Medicare eligible retirees health insurance coverage allegedly inferior to the coverage offered to retired employees not eligible for Medicare. Accordingly will reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. Would remain eligible only if they fell into one of four groups: employees unable to continue their employment due to a disability and who otherwise were eligible for a disability retirement pension. The plaintiff class in this action is composed of retirees who are aged 65 or older and thus eligible for Medicare who remain eligible for retiree health coverage under these restrictions. Pressure to reduce costs was enhanced when Highmark announced that it would increase the County's premiums for medical insurance coverage by an average of 48%. The district court described SecurityBlue as follows: SecurityBlue is a coordinated health care plan provided through Keystone Health Plan West. SecurityBlue is available to persons who have Medicare Part B Medical Insurance and who live in the SecurityBlue `service area' [which includes most of western Pennsylvania].
</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.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/034212p1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Petitions asserted that disqualification was also wa r r a n te d u nder 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) as a result of ex parte communications among Judge Wolin and his advisors. Our decision was
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-3368.html">BINGAMAN V. DEPT. OF TREASURY<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></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-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/97-7040a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal is brought by the Boards of Trustees of two employee benefit plans. (We will refer to the two plans as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></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-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1363.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McIninch & Phillips was on brief. With whom Twomey & Sisti Law Offices was on brief. Were on brief. Appellant Donovan was charged with. Appellants Aversa and Mento were charged with. The cross appeals (Nos. 91 1615 and 91 1616) are moot. They will. Although Donovan was the bank's legal compliance officer a status which presumptively suggests his familiarity with banking laws he did not prepare CTRs for any of these deposits. Donovan fended off his subordinates' concerns about the unorthodox way he was handling Saba's cash. Donovan admitted that he was aware of the law requiring him to file CTRs for cash deposits of $10. Insisted that he mistakenly believed Saba's deposits came within one of the law's exemptions.2 The district court 2
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/974025P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Griffin was acquitted of the RICO count. Whereas in fact the jury was unable to reach agreement on that count. The opinion is amended to correct this error. The Clerk is directed to file an amended opinion containing the appropriate change. Fisher was the President of the Greater Kansas City AFL CIO. Hurst was a registered lobbyist. Who was a member of the Clay County Commission in Clay County. Was not a defendant in this case. Were associated with a RICO enterprise. Which was introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 9. Which was proposed to increase the state motor fuel tax by six cents a gallon over five years to pay for construction of highways. Which was owned by the City of North Kansas City. The members of the CON Committee are appointed by the Governor of Missouri. Was hostile to some of their activities. Simmons was acquitted of the bribery count involving the removal of Rep. Michael Fisher was convicted of four of the five counts against him. Was acquitted of the bribery count involving the removal of Rep.
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/974025P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fisher was the The Honorable Owen M. Hurst was a registered lobbyist. Who was a member of the Clay County Commission in Clay County. Was not a defendant in this case. Were associated with a RICO enterprise. Which was introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 9. Which was proposed to increase the state motor fuel tax by six cents a gallon over five years to pay for construction of highways. Which was owned by the City of North Kansas City. The members of the CON Committee are appointed by the Governor of Missouri. Was hostile to some of their activities. Simmons was acquitted of the bribery count involving the removal of Rep. Michael Fisher was convicted of four of the five counts against him. Was acquitted of the bribery count involving the removal of Rep. Bob Griffin was acquitted of four of the counts against him. The jury was unable to reach a decision on the other five counts against him. Steven Hurst was acquitted of all three counts brought against him. 5 For purposes of the federal Sentencing Guidelines.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/57B72CCC0B4522B588256E440001C9C1/$file/0135032o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. Dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc: This is a dark day for the Voting Rights Act. The court should have taken this case en banc and brought order back into our caselaw. Plaintiffs' case is based entirely on statistical disparities: They claim that disparities in the felony conviction rates of certain minority groups in relation to their presence in the general population lead to a disparity in the rate of disenfranchisement under Washington's felon disenfranchisement law. They argue that these disparities alone prove that under the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/02/982351P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case returns to this court after we have received the judgment from the United States Supreme Court. We conclude that our appropriate course is to remand to the district court with instructions to affirm its order and judgment entered on May 12. Or for any office where the population of the electoral district is 250. Or for any office where the population of the electoral district is 100. $275 for candidates for state representative or for any office where the population of the electoral district is less than 100. We applied the strict scrutiny standard of review and reasoned that the State's evidence was insufficient to prove a compelling interest that would be served by the contribution limits of SB650. We have also carefully considered our course with respect to the $525 and Senate Bill 650 as passed contained limits of $1. Which were increased pursuant to an inflation adjustment provision in early 1998. The decision for the court also expressed the view that the limits in SB650 were different in kind from those in Buckley v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7117a.html">A I TRD FIN INC V. PETRA INTL BNKG CORP<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1766.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A. were on brief for appellants. P.A. and Julianne Cloutier were on brief for appellee Amy Bierbaum. Cabell and Hale and Dorr were on brief for appellees Verrill & Dana. McClennen & Fish were on brief for appellee RECOLL Management Corporation. Hochadel & Libby were on brief for appellee Fleet Bank of Maine. The issue is one of first impression. We have attached them in an appendix to our opinion. 2. As will be discussed infra. We believe the court erred in determining that this action was jurisdictionally barred. Section 3730(e)(3) states:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7373654D63D36DF78825704A006EFAC8/$file/0455772.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that such a treaty is constitutional. Contending (1) that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to certify extradition because the Extradition Agreement between the United States and Hong Kong is not a proper
</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/97/08/971757P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Historical documents demonstrate that the government was interested in purchasing the land for purposes of harvesting its pine timber. Is guarantied to the The plaintiff Bands in this case have referred to themselves throughout as Bands of Chippewa Indians.
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5101.html">AMERICAN PELAGIC FISHING COMPANY, L.P. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Eileen Penner</u>. DC.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Laurie Frost Wilson</u>. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. That American Pelagic did not suffer the taking of a property interest that is legally cognizable under the Fifth Amendment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We therefore reverse the decision with regard to liability. 1983).</p> <p class=MsoBodyTextIndent3>The pertinent facts are not in dispute.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Throughout the 1990s. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a> reported that mackerel and herring stocks in the Atlantic Ocean were at record highs and were substantially underfished.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Am. Explaining that stocks were extremely high and harvesting low.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u><span style='mso bidi font size:10.0pt.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1235.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Suris & Godreau were on brief for appellant. Ram rez Lavandero & Associates were on brief for appellees. Appellant Romero Barcelo was the Governor of Puerto Rico. Subpoenas were issued for documents in the possession of the 1Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals are reviewed under the rubric that
</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/96DB0E84FBE9E0FE88256D6F0006B8FE/$file/0016858.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Weston was on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. A sexually oriented business is 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/docs/common/opinions/200702/05-5379c.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
William Perry Pendley was on brief. Was on brief. We hold that the IBLA's interpretation of FLPMA section 1714(b) to allow consecutive segregation periods with different purposes is reasonable. That the IBLA's conclusion that the two segregation periods were not identical was not arbitrary or capricious and that the Secretary's withdrawal was not arbitrary or capricious and does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. A. Statutory Background FLPMA provides that
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114872.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ballinger claims that § 247 is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' commerce power. We have little trouble concluding that § 247. Is a constitutional expression of Congress' well established power to regulate the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce in order to prevent their use for harmful purposes. Concluding that § 247 was constitutional both facially and as applied. The panel held that although § 247 was a constitutional exercise of the commerce power. Ballinger is a practicing
</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.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/03-5232a.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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2427.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. This is an action to enjoin the Department of Defense from carrying out the President's decision to close Loring Air Force Base (
</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/200510669.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is a vote dilution case. 69.4% were white. 15.0% were Hispanic. 10.5% were African American. 73.2% were white. 12.7% were Hispanic. 10.1% were African American.1 Population numbers alone. Most of the Hispanic population is dispersed across the southern portion of the county. The African American population is concentrated in an area known as Washington Park. The same election scheme governs both the County Commission and the School Board: the county is divided into five residential districts. At large voting determines the outcome of each election.2 Candidates that receive a majority of the countywide vote in a primary election are selected as their political party's nominee. 3 and a plurality of the countywide vote is sufficient to win the general election. The County Commission elections are partisan and School Board elections became nonpartisan due to a Florida statutory change effective January 1. The only other African American candidate for countywide office on either the County Commission or School Board was Charles Hall.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></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-4.gif" ALT="438"></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-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1428.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was James Caffentzis. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Maria Pagan. McDermott Will & Emery LLP. With him on the brief was Raymond Paretzky. Of counsel was David J. Motions Systems was one of three domestic producers of pedestal actuators. The ITC promptly investigated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/97-4015.htm">97-4015 -- STATE OF UTAH V. BABBITT -- 03/03/1998<BR></A><BR>
Summary of Utah Wilderness Debate</strong> <p> A brief review of the history of the wilderness debate in Utah is necessary to put the facts of this case into context. These public lands comprise approximately one fifth of the nation's land and are primarily located in eleven western states and Alaska. <em>See id.</em> <p> FLPMA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1886.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. <P> <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-7073.html">COOK V. BROWN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/18FFEF170766D6AC88256AEF005A703E/$file/9855056.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will & Emery. We are called upon to determine whether. Those cleanup costs were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200616324.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are confronted with the task of interpreting several provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E81DBF41AAD2A0F188256E5A00707D25/$file/9855056.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will & Emery. We are called upon to determine whether. Those cleanup costs were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CC516F062D5456A788256CE1005ED1DC/$file/0056673.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2003 is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. After
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></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-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/95-8230.man.html">CHANDLER V. MILLER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Chandler v. Each such candidate shall file a certificate ... stating that such candidate has been tested for illegal drugs ... and that the results of such test are negative.... Plaintiff appellants are members of the Libertarian Party seeking the offices of Lieutenant Governor. Is basically barred from holding office. Additional aspects of the drug testing scheme were outlined by the district court: testing may. The test is designed to reveal the presence or absence of the indicia of five illegal drugs. No information unrelated to drug use is contemplated by the statute. Be the basis for barring a candidate from the ballot.<p> II.<p> <p> That the tests at issue are searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment seems settled. <i>See Skinner v. This test
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/95-8230.man.html">CHANDLER V. MILLER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Chandler v. Each such candidate shall file a certificate ... stating that such candidate has been tested for illegal drugs ... and that the results of such test are negative.... Plaintiff appellants are members of the Libertarian Party seeking the offices of Lieutenant Governor. Is basically barred from holding office. Additional aspects of the drug testing scheme were outlined by the district court: testing may. The test is designed to reveal the presence or absence of the indicia of five illegal drugs. No information unrelated to drug use is contemplated by the statute. Be the basis for barring a candidate from the ballot.<p> II.<p> <p> That the tests at issue are searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment seems settled. <i>See Skinner v. This test
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="419"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2204ENBANC.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pollock</SPAN> were on supplemental opening brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="419"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/97-5537.opn.html">MAYERS V. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF IMMIGRATION (5/20/1999, NO. 97-5537)<BR></A><BR>
Sitting by designation.</P> <P>**This decision is rendered by a quorum. We provide below a brief overview of the statutory schemes that are relevant to this action.</P> <UL> <LI>Reform of Immigration Laws</STRONG></LI> <UL> <LI><U>AEDPA</U></LI> </UL> </UL> <P><STRONG> On April 24. Eliminated the earlier INA § 106(a)(10) and under AEDPA § 440(a) substituted the following language:</P> <P> [A]ny final order of deportation against an alien who is deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense [as set forth in the INA] shall not be subject to review by any court.</P> <P>AEDPA § 440(a). Were entitled to apply for a waiver of deportation under INA § 212(c). The granting of a waiver was a discretionary act of the Attorney General. The judicial review process for deportation orders once again was restructured when Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="419"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/98-8297.man.html">WOFFORD V. SCOTT (6/14/1999, NO. 98-8297)<BR></A><BR>
Seeks to have three claims he failed to raise in his first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion addressed and decided on the merits. His problem is that § 2255. We denied his earlier application to file a second § 2255 motion.</P> <P> Wofford is now back before us on an appeal from the district court's rebuff of his attempt to use the habeas remedy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="419"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/98-8297.man.html">WOFFORD V. SCOTT (6/14/1999, NO. 98-8297)<BR></A><BR>
Seeks to have three claims he failed to raise in his first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion addressed and decided on the merits. His problem is that § 2255. We denied his earlier application to file a second § 2255 motion.</P> <P> Wofford is now back before us on an appeal from the district court's rebuff of his attempt to use the habeas remedy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="419"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/97-5537.opn.html">MAYERS V. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF IMMIGRATION (5/20/1999, NO. 97-5537)<BR></A><BR>
Sitting by designation.</P> <P>**This decision is rendered by a quorum. We provide below a brief overview of the statutory schemes that are relevant to this action.</P> <UL> <LI>Reform of Immigration Laws</STRONG></LI> <UL> <LI><U>AEDPA</U></LI> </UL> </UL> <P><STRONG> On April 24. Eliminated the earlier INA § 106(a)(10) and under AEDPA § 440(a) substituted the following language:</P> <P> [A]ny final order of deportation against an alien who is deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense [as set forth in the INA] shall not be subject to review by any court.</P> <P>AEDPA § 440(a). Were entitled to apply for a waiver of deportation under INA § 212(c). The granting of a waiver was a discretionary act of the Attorney General. The judicial review process for deportation orders once again was restructured when Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="419"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1626p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The governing statute is 18 U.S.C. § 5032. Whether the certification decision of the United States Attorney General or her designee the first step in the transfer proceedings is reviewable by a federal court. Because we believe that the core of the decision to certify is one left to the discretion of the federal prosecutor. We follow the majority circuit view and hold that we have jurisdiction to review only limited aspects of the certification decision. Including whether the certification is proper in form. Whether it was made in bad faith. For the non reviewable facets of the certification (that the Virgin Islands refuses to assume jurisdiction and that the case presents a substantial federal interest) are sufficient and sustain the certification. 2 The second step question. Turns on whether the possession crime with which the juvenile was charged. The commission of the crime will therefore present a substantial risk that physical force will be used. The order of the district court transferring the juvenile's case to federal court will thus be affirmed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/012062P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. (3) are unconstitutionally vague in the use of the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/96-4577.ma2.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577)<BR></A><BR>
The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action.</P> <P> The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed.</P> <P> Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/96-4577.ma2.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577)<BR></A><BR>
The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action.</P> <P> The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed.</P> <P> Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/94-1579.htm">94-1579 -- SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE V. AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. -- 07/20/1998<BR></A><BR>
) <p> for lands located within the exterior boundaries of the ) <p> Southern Ute Indian Reservation and which class ) <p> members have not obtained tribal consent to and ) <p> federal approval of said interests of rights. Which entities ) <p> have not obtained tribal consent to and federal ) <p> approval of said exploration. 2) a declaratory judgment that Tribal consent is required for CBM extraction. Sought injunctive relief to prevent the federal defendants from issuing permits to explore for and extract CBM under oil and gas leases or from otherwise acquiescing in the derogation of the Tribe's alleged ownership interest in CBM. <p> Two issues were identified as fundamental to the resolution of all claims against the Amoco defendants: 1) the determination of CBM ownership. Amoco was designated as representative of the class and. The Tribe brought a cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of CBM ownership. <p> The district court held that CBM ownership was vested unambiguously in the Amoco defendants. <u>Southern Ute Indian Tribe v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3331.html">KELLY BUTTERBAUGH V. DEPT OF JUSTICE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Robert D. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>James M. Acted permissibly in charging Petitioners' military leave allowance for days on which they were not scheduled to work. That federal employees need take military leave only for those days on which they are required to work. Line height:200%'>Petitioners are full time employees of the Depar
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628reh2.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 Emergency Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. Pryor Jr. did not participate in the consideration of the Petition because he is recovering from surgery performed on Monday. An axiom in the study of law is that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/96a0025p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The Question Presented This is a direct criminal appeal by a convicted Tennessee state judge. Section 242 was adopted as a codification of prior law in 1874 during the period of Reconstruction in the aftermath of the Civil War. It criminalizes without any further definition the willful
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/012198.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the appellants possessed and distributed a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Robert A. Were on the brief for amici curiae States of Texas. Polsby were on the brief for amici curiae Professors Frederick Bieber. Stefan Bijan Tahmassebi was on the brief for amicus curiae Congress of Racial Equality. Ferrara was on the brief for amicus curiae American Civil Rights Union in support of appellants. Robert Dowlut was on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association Civil Rights Defense Fund in support of appellants seeking reversal. With him on the brief were Robert J. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Ernest McGill in support of appellees. Were on the brief for amici curiae Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Were on the brief for amici curiae The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Who is a District of Columbia special police officer permitted to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center. Heller applied for and was denied a registration certificate to own a handgun. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3241.html">JAMES L. BILLINGER V. OPM<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>David W. S unused sick leave was earned under a formal leave system and therefore is creditable under the CSRS. Billinger is entitled to a retirement annuity under the CSRS. <u>See</u> 5 U.S.C. § . Concluding that he was not entitled to service credit for his unused sick leave because he was not covered under ". Concluding that Billinger was covered by ". We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § . S decision unless it was ". Cir. 1999).</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958869.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that there was no federal jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 501 (1994) or 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (1994) for this suit by a union against its former officials. The real estate was originally purchased by a local union of brewery workers at the Pabst brewery in Perry. The local was an affiliate of the International Union of United Brewery. The local dissolved in 1989 because the brewery closed. plaintiff international union's constitution provided: In the even[t] that a local's charter is revoked. If such a charter is not reissued within the year. The deal fell through because the title search showed that the title was vested in Statham. He learned that the union was claiming it owned the property. Barrett.1 Byars's interpleader action was removed to federal court and joined with the union's suit. They have These issues are pure questions of law. Subject Both Byars and Mobley have died. Have been substituted for them as parties in this case. 1 arrived at opposite conclusions.2 Section 2 501 deals with civil liability in two parts.3 The courts that have concluded that section 501 does not create a cause of action that can be asserted by a union are: Building Material and Dump Truck Drivers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1598.html">BAYER AG AND BAYER CORPORATION V. HOUSEY<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Rudolf E. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Rolf O. Summerfield</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>M. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Laura W. 007 for failure to state a claim.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because we conclude that infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) is limited to physical goods that were manufactured and does not include information generated by a patented process. Because the physical goods here (drug products) were not manufactured by a process claimed in the asserted patents. Mso bidi font family:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="403"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/94-1576.wpd.html">AM. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FOUND. V. MEYER<BR></A><BR>
A referendum is unavailable with respect to laws
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="403"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199812/98-5105a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Amber Wong Hsu. With him on the brief were Loretta C. An organization is not operated exclusively for exempt purposes if it is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="403"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTEyMTktY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1219-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The only payment received was an involuntary garnishment of her wages in mid March of 1998. She applied for and was issued by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles a Florida only driver's license. Although there is some evidence that Venturella returned to New York on various occasions while she lived in Florida. Or is greater than $5. Or is greater than $5. That definition has no reference to an intent to remain permanently or indefinitely and would have simply required the jury to determine whether Venturella had her
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="403"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312545.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Revives securities fraud actions that were time barred before the effective date of the SOA. Determining that the new limitations period revives actions that previously were time barred. A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="403"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0952p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge We are asked to decide if the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="403"></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-4.gif" ALT="403"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/023381p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are once again called upon to determine whether a lawsuit claiming medical negligence is completely preempted by the civil enforcement provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="403"></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-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-5133.htm">01-5133 -- U.S. V. BOTEFUHR -- 10/31/2002<BR></A><BR>
The Appellants are precluded from litigating the value of the Hondo stock in the present action. 184 F.3d at 1179. <p> Less than two years after the sale and over four years before Davenport and Vestal were to commence paying their promissory notes. Her last will and testament were admitted to probate in Tulsa.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3888_023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It held that the records were exempt from the Privacy Act's amendment requirements. That 1 maintain
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5121.html">WELLS FARGO BANK V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/12B5E979646FEF1D88256FCF00033CA7/$file/0156069.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will & Emery. Precedent that is available in analogous situations. Because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="391"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/96-3278.htm">96-3278 -- U.S. V. GOTTLIEB -- 04/03/1998<BR></A><BR>
The statute requires the district court to sentence to life in prison any person who is convicted in federal court of a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5019.html">STRICKLAND CAROLINE E V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief were <U>Lois J. <U>Circuit Judge.</P> </U><P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/97-5290a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Joseph H. With her on the brief were Lois J. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Patrick J. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Lincoln C. Aboriginal inhabitants of what is now Rhode Island. The Tribe was drawn into bloody warfare with Puritan colonists seeking to gain political authority over much of Rhode Island by securing claims to Indian land. The Settlement Act specifi cally stated that Narragansett settlement lands are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EC0DA1401999D9E88256ED900693A89/$file/0330339.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court clerk was to send these reports to the United States Sentencing Commission. We are asked to decide whether the district court exceeded its statutory or inherent authority. The United States argues that we have jurisdiction to consider its direct appeal from the district court's order denying its motion to set aside the Standing Order in this criminal case. Which was one of the first cases in which the Standing Order's requirements were triggered. If appellate jurisdiction is lacking. These questions have divided our panel. We are unanimous as to Sections I and III. Provides insight into how the requirement generally was satisfied: Most districts ask the probation office to submit the sentencing documents. This is. Particularly where the probation office is not involved in the proceeding. The Memorandum of Understanding set forth the complete list of documents to be submitted as part of the sentencing report and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0172p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(TP&A) is a federally mandated independent non profit agency that investigates allegations of abuse against the disabled. Is not covered under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act). When he was 20 years old. He was permanently disabled and must live in a nursing home because he is unable to care for himself. TP&A is the Tennessee chapter of a network of independent agencies. Each state must
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C740557C88F27A1888256D3A00540B8C/$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-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-3084a.html">USA V. OAKAR MARY ROSE<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct96/95-8869.opa.html">INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRONIC, ELECTRICAL, SALARIED, MACHINE & FURNITURE WORKERS V. STATHAM<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>International Union of Electronic. The district court held that there was no federal jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTkzNjFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-9361_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before us are (1) an interlocutory appeal by the Republic of Austria. We are asked by the Republic of Austria and by the United States and the American Council for Equal Compensation of Nazi Victims from Austria. Which is reported to be the sole remaining obstacle to the implementation of a fund to compensate Austrian Jewish victims of the Nazi regime for Holocaust related property deprivations. Circuit Judge: We are asked by the Republic of Austria and by the United States and the American Council for Equal Compensation of Nazi Victims from Austria. Which is reported to be the sole remaining obstacle to the implementation of a fund to compensate Austrian Jewish victims of the Nazi regime for Holocaust related property deprivations. That fund was created in 2001 pursuant to an executive agreement between the United States and Austria. Other Austrian entities arises from sweeping confiscations of property that were part of the systematic Nazi victimization of Austrian Jews between 1938 and 1945. We are reminded of the words of Judah Gribetz.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/96-1449a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Baumann were on brief. Were on brief. Were on the brief. Cosentino were on brief. Hochberg and Judith Jurin Semo were on brief. Royalties are apportioned among eight classes of claimants. In Phase II awards are made to individual copyright owners within each of the classes. The panel's proposal is then forwarded to the Librari an. Each of the petitioners here is a disappointed class claim ant challenging the Librarian's Phase I distribution of royal ties collected for the years 1990. Because our review of the Librarian's decision is limited. I. BACKGROUND In 1974 the Supreme Court ruled that a cable television system's retransmission of non network copyrighted pro graming to markets distant from those to which it was originally broadcast was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1334539721EDC17088256C400083A586/$file/0155986.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The census data is used for myriad other purposes. A. Sampling and the Census Act At issue in this case is whether the Secretary was required to statistically adjust the results of Census 2000 pursuant to 13 U.S.C. § 195. The Census 2000 Plan would have resulted in one set of census results: the initial headcount data adjusted by statistical sampling techniques. The Bureau modified its plan to statistically adjust the Census The studies were conducted pursuant to the Decennial Census Improvement Act of 1991. The Report set forth the Bureau's preliminary determination that the use of the statistically adjusted data was feasible in terms of both the statutory deadline for releasing redistricting information and the improvement of the census' accuracy. The A.C.E. methodology is based on a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/005047.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Johnson submits that compelling arbitration is precluded by an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/01-5373a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct96/95-8869.opa.html">INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRONIC, ELECTRICAL, SALARIED, MACHINE & FURNITURE WORKERS V. STATHAM<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>International Union of Electronic. The district court held that there was no federal jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/95-6000.html">KELLEY V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR>
Were on the brief for amici curiae. Was unconstitutional. I. Section 601 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 was enacted by the 103rd Congress. Was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Or service of an air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier through common controlling ownership when such carrier is transporting property by aircraft or by motor vehicle (whether or not such property has had or will have a prior or subsequent air movement). Or provision is no more burdensome than compliance with. Which was relied upon by the district court but was not cited in plaintiffs' complaint. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is not always applicable to suits filed against federal entities or officials. The doctrine does not apply in such cases because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5137.html">E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Maureen E. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. For amicus curiae American Chemistry Council.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Walter Dellinger</u> and <u>Jonathan D. As may be approved or ratified by the Contracting Officer and as are included in the following items: </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin top:0in. Text indent:.5in'><span style='color:black'>8.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>It is the understanding of the parties hereto. That all work under this Title III is to be performed at the expense of the Government and that the Government shall hold [DuPont] harmless against any loss. Damage or liability is due to the personal failure on the part of the corporate officers of [DuPont]. The government terminated the MOW Contract and entered into a supplemental agreement with DuPont (the Termination Supplement ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Neither DuPont nor the government was able to locate a copy of the Termination Supplement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/052320P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Steinlage is a citizen of Nevada. A Minnesota wrongful death trustee is a representative of a decedent's surviving spouse. I. The facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed. Complete diversity is destroyed and the federal courts lack jurisdiction. When death is caused by the wrongful act or omission of any person or corporation. The trustee appointed as provided in subdivision 3 may maintain an action therefor if the decedent might have maintained an action. The recovery in the action is the amount the jury deems fair and just in reference to the pecuniary 2 loss resulting from the death. Are first deducted and paid. If an action for the injury was commenced by the decedent and not finally determined while living. When injury is caused to a person by the wrongful act or omission of any person or corporation and the person thereafter dies from a cause unrelated to those injuries. The trustee appointed in subdivision 3 may maintain an action for special damages arising out of such injury if the decedent might have maintained an action therefor had the decedent lived.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A7FC5F0B39BF868A88256FCB007B1F15/$file/0356129.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This escrow order directed to Gemstar was predicated upon the district court's conclusion under the statute that these payments. Which were to be made during the course of a lawful investigation by the SEC of Gemstar involving possible violations of federal securities laws. Were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1398.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Devereaux</U> was on brief. Larisa Jr.</U> was on brief. Rocha</U> and <U>Joseph Avanzato</U> were on brief. Hawkins was terminated by the Rhode Island Lottery Commission from his position as its director after a flurry of negative publicity in which his conduct in office was criticized. Particularly on unworthy state law issues.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI3MzMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2733-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over private causes of action brought under § 227. Circuit Judge: This case presents the question of whether federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over private causes of action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/96-4087.htm">96-4087 -- SNYDER V. MURRAY CITY CORP. -- 10/27/1998<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/041568P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold unanimously that the residency restriction is not unconstitutional on its face. Because the appellees have not established by the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1939p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's denial of qualified immunity and will remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. Larsen was elected to a ten year term on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court beginning in January 1978. Those claims are the subject 1. Notified Larsen that he was ineligible to receive retirement medical benefits as of June 3. Judge or justice of the peace who is suspended or removed from office. . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1939a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's denial of qualified immunity and will remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. Larsen was elected to a ten year term on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court beginning in January 1978. Those claims are the subject of separate appeals before this court and thus we do not address them in this opinion. Notified Larsen that he was ineligible to receive retirement medical benefits as of June 3. Judge or justice of the peace who is suspended or removed from office. . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044333p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to determine whether a private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 exists for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a). Or electronic communication is intercepted. Specifically at issue are default judgments entered by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Appellees. Who are alleged by Appellant DIRECTV. Inc. to have pirated its encrypted satellite television broadcasts. We have jurisdiction to review the final orders of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 For the following reasons. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court that no private right of action exists under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a) for violations of 18 DIRECTV did not immediately appeal the Order as to defendant Keal in DeCroce. Was compelled by Fed. Because no final order existed until the last defendant was dismissed. We conclude that the appeal was timely filed. That there is no jurisdictional defect. 2 1 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) where the defendant has. Are variously known as unloopers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212924.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As that phrase is used in § 1958(a). Valoze's cellular phone number was registered in a South Georgia area code. This telephone call was recorded. Both men were physically located in Georgia. The money would only be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0151p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Declaring that it is permissible for the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5352a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Richard B. With him on the brief were Michelle M. Fred Wertheimer. 2 Trevor Potter was on the brief for amici curiae John McCain. Federal campaign finance law is complex. BCRA is no exception. Though few of its details are important to this litigation (and those that are we describe later in our analysis).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5405a.html">AK LEGIS CNCL V. BABBITT BRUCE<BR></A><BR>
With him <p> on the briefs was <i>Robin W. With her <p> on the brief were <i>Lois J. Erwin</i> was on the brief for <i>amici curiae</i> Dale <p> Bondurant. Featherly</i> was on the brief for <i>amici curiae</i> <p> Mary Bishop. <i>Circuit Judge</i>: The Alaska Legislative Council is <p> a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/99-5147a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Arthur B. With him on the brief were David W. Van Ee contends that EPA and the district court have read the statute too broadly. That if they have not. Is uncon stitutionally vague as applied. We hold that s 205 is inapplicable to Van Ee's uncompen sated communications on behalf of public interest groups in response to requests by an agency at which he is not em ployed for public comment on proposed environmental impact statements related to land use plans. Will not result in a direct material benefit to the public interest groups. I. Van Ee is an electrical engineer in the Office of Research and Development in the Characterization Research Division of the National Exposure Research Laboratory in Las Vegas. The laboratory is part of EPA. Van Ee is a career civil service employee. None of his communications was related to his respon sibilities at EPA. The complaint further alleged that Van Ee was warned that additional violations of s 205 could result in disciplinary action.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2369.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Victoria Pulos with whom Deborah Schachter and New Hampshire Legal Assistance were on brief for appellees. This is a class action challenging as arbitrary and capricious an Aid to Families With Dependent Children (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/746D7C92546BD66488256CB50057F4FE/$file/0056673.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellants in these consolidated cases allege that they were forced to work as slave laborers for German and Japanese corporations during the Second World War. Defendants Appellees are corporations (or successors or affiliates of those corporations) that allegedly committed these atrocities. These claims are not time barred if commenced on or before December 31. All raise section 354.6 as the primary basis for bringing their suits so many years after the alleged wrongs were committed. We hold that section 354.6 is invalid under the United States Constitution and that in its absence Appellants' remaining claims are time barred. The slave workers were often underfed. Many were murdered. Among these slave laborers were. A phenomenon that is still thriving in all too many parts of the world today.2 Although the statute distinguishes between
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0BFF2CFAE79835FD88256FE7005BEA8C/$file/0315208.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are faced here with the question whether claims for losses allegedly suffered at the hands of a Nazi puppet regime during World War II are cognizable in our courts today. It is tempting to jump to the conclusion that such claims are barred by the political question doctrine. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="362"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0207p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was not valid as applied to 1 No. 05 1952 Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty. v. The suit was in response to Defendants' attempts to assess. Count I alleged that Plaintiff was entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief because Congress had not clearly authorized state taxation of the real property at issue. Count II alleged that Plaintiff was entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief because application of the Act would violate the terms of the 1854 Treaty. Entered a declaratory judgment that the Act was not valid as applied to the real property at issue. The Parties Plaintiff is a federally recognized American Indian tribe and is the successor in interest of the L'Anse and Ontonagon bands of Chippewa Indians. Defendant Robert Naftaly is the chairperson of the Michigan State Tax Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="362"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071289p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A declaration from the District Court that the justices' commissions were void because the Governor failed to comply with the statutory deadline for submitting his nominations to the Legislature and because the Governor exceeded his statutory authority under Section 7(a) of the Organic Act. By calling the special session at which the nominees were confirmed. Governor Turnbull was the original defendant in this action. DeJongh was sworn in as Governor of the Virgin Islands. He was thereafter substituted for Governor Turnbull. Croix.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1966.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for the United States.</SPAN> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-7005.html">SEARS V. PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR>
Argued for respondent appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>David M. A final decision by the DVA on a veteran s claim that is not appealed may not be reopened unless statutorily authorized.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>38 U.S.C. § 7105(c) (2000).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The statute provides only two grounds on which otherwise finally decided claims may be reopened.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The ground at issue in this appeal is the production of new and material evidence. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Id.</u> § 5108.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Section 5108 provides that. [i]f new
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5044.html">AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 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-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/98-9347.man.html">GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES V. COX (8/11/1999, NO. 98-9347)<BR></A><BR>
Organizations whose members are citizens eligible to vote in Georgia elections. Contending the system by which state elections are financed in Georgia violates their rights to equal protection. The district court concluded Appellants did not have standing and dismissed their complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Appellants contend the laws that ensure the success of wealthy candidates are: (1) Ga.Code Ann. § 21 5 41(c). Helps to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-8154.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. OBOH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The <i>en banc</i> court decides that it will not overturn <i>United States v. </i> the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have also addressed this issue and joined the First Circuit in holding that section 3583(d) does not permit district courts to order deportation as a condition of supervised release. <i>See United States v. INS agents received a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/94-8154.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. OBOH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The <i>en banc</i> court decides that it will not overturn <i>United States v. </i> the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have also addressed this issue and joined the First Circuit in holding that section 3583(d) does not permit district courts to order deportation as a condition of supervised release. <i>See United States v. INS agents received a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-9540.wpd.html">JOY TECH., INC. V. SECRETARY OF LABOR<BR></A><BR>
Arguing that (1) Joy is not an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6787031248DE101D88257146007CCCDF/$file/0655109.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued and was on the briefs for the appellants. Were also on the briefs for the appellants. Argued and was on the briefs for the appellees. Were also on the briefs for the appellees. (2) a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/62CF816C44C9C60C88256D9D00516903/$file/0250196.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power. We hold that it is not. Is not substantially overbroad under the First Amendment. Nor is the statute void for vagueness. Adams was a sex offender on state probation and was required to submit to such searches. A search was conducted at the home of defendant STEVEN ADAMS. ADAMS was in possession of a computer and a number of computer diskettes. The computer diskettes and computer contained components that were not manufactured in the State of California. 2. We reject the argument that Adams's indictment was constitutionally infirm because of an improper instruction when the grand jury was empaneled. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. II A Adams first argues that Congress is powerless to enact a statute criminalizing intrastate possession of child pornography. To decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) is a valid exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. The Court
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0418p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948154.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The en banc court decides that it will not overturn United States v. The Fourth and Fifth Circuits have also addressed this issue and joined the First Circuit in holding that section 3583(d) does not permit district courts to order deportation as a condition of supervised release. INS agents received a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1629.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Coles with whom Coles and Mongue was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellees. *Of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The rule that was the catalyst of this controversy is a regulation. Ran afoul of the regulation and hence was barred by the Division from fishing for loligo squid in 1990 in the squid rich waters of Nantucket Sound and Vineyard Sound. Both the vessel length limitation on fishing and the quantity limitation on at sea processing were challenged on dual grounds. It was contended that the limitations constitute an undue burden on commerce. It was contended that the Massachusetts limitations are incompatible with supervening. Agreeing with the district court that the ninety foot rule is valid. Was named as an additional plaintiff. We will refer to plaintiffs collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/021580u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pennsylvania lost two congressional seats and was required to adopt a redistricting plan. Which was signed into law on January 7. Was permitted to intervene in the underlying case for the limited purpose of supporting a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on a third party. After the motion to quash was denied. We will dism iss the appeal as moot. Was unconstitutional. D.J.'s) was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284 (a). Which provides for such a panel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993047.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
S 2D1.1 because the Government did not prove the substance involved in his criminal offenses was crack cocaine. The court order declared:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/97-1440a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Henry V. With him on the briefs were Daniel R. Were on the briefs for the State Petitioners in 97 1440 and 97 1441. Kaplan on the brief were Lois J. Were on the brief for intervenor Massachusetts and New Jersey. C. Boyden Gray and Alan Charles Raul were on the brief for Amicus Curiae Congressman Tom Bliley in 97 1441. With them on the briefs were David H. With him on the briefs was David S. With him on the briefs were Harold P. Edgar on the brief were Lois J. Were on the brief for intervenors Massachusetts and New Jersey. C. Boyden Gray and Alan Charles Raul were on the brief for amicus curiae Senator Orrin Hatch in 97 1440. Numerous petitions for review have been filed for each rule. That EPA should have considered the environmental damage likely to result from the NAAQS' financial impact on the Abandoned Mine Recla mation Fund. We agree with petitioners that EPA's choice of PM10 as the indicator for coarse particulate matter was arbitrary and capricious. Although the factors EPA uses in determining the degree of public health concern associated with different levels of ozone and PM are reason able.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></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-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/98-9347.man.html">GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES V. COX (8/11/1999, NO. 98-9347)<BR></A><BR>
Organizations whose members are citizens eligible to vote in Georgia elections. Contending the system by which state elections are financed in Georgia violates their rights to equal protection. The district court concluded Appellants did not have standing and dismissed their complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Appellants contend the laws that ensure the success of wealthy candidates are: (1) Ga.Code Ann. § 21 5 41(c). Helps to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/98-4945.man.html">CBS V. PRIMETIME 24 JOINT VENTURE (3/26/2001, NO. 98-4945)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984945.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * This copyright infringement action was brought against PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5171a.html">BROWN & WILLIAMSON V. WAXMAN HENRY A.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/98-4945.man.html">CBS V. PRIMETIME 24 JOINT VENTURE (3/26/2001, NO. 98-4945)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984945.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This copyright infringement action was brought against PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1567p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are here asked to decide whether a victim of a privately executed wiretap can successfully move to quash a subpoena duces tecum directing the perpetrator of the wiretap to convey recordings of unlawfully intercepted communications to a grand jury. We will reverse the district court and remand with orders that the subpoena duces tecum be quashed. We will not refer to the parties by their proper names. We will also limit our recitation of the facts to the minimum necessary to explain and resolve the issues presented. The relevant facts are undisputed. Appellant intervenor John Doe 1 is the target of a federal grand jury investigation (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="343"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B67C07DCC082AC598825701A007626F4/$file/0315208.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are faced here with the question whether claims for losses allegedly suffered at the hands of a Nazi puppet regime during World War II are cognizable in our courts today. It is tempting to jump to the conclusion that such claims are barred by the political question doctrine. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-7077.htm">02-7077 -- LOCAL 514 TRANSPORT WORKER UNION OF AMERICA V. KEATING -- 02/13/2004<BR></A><BR>
1A of the Oklahoma Constitution were preempted by federal law and that any remaining non preempted provision was not severable from the preempted provisions. 1A that were preempted by federal labor law were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975091.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. The historical facts and the procedural history necessary to understand this lawsuit are complex and extensive. The City of Belle Glade is an incorporated municipality located on the western side of Palm Beach County. Was populated by whites and stood at the City's northwest corner. Was populated by blacks and was located to the southwest of the City. These ordinances were repealed. The total population of the City of Belle Glade was 11. 393 (65.6%) were non whites and 3. 880 (34.4%) were whites.2 The following year. The population of the Osceola Center was 46% black. Whereas the population of the Okeechobee Center was 92% black and 8% Hispanic. 4 2 1 BGHA. The City Commission's minutes simply reflect that a meeting was to be arranged between the City Commission and the BGHA to discuss the possibility of annexing the Okeechobee Center.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975091.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. The historical facts and the procedural history necessary to understand this lawsuit are complex and extensive. The City of Belle Glade is an incorporated municipality located on the western side of Palm Beach County. Was populated by whites and stood at the City's northwest corner. Was populated by blacks and was located to the southwest of the City. These ordinances were repealed. The total population of the City of Belle Glade was 11. 393 (65.6%) were non whites and 3. 880 (34.4%) were whites.2 The following year. The City Commission's minutes simply reflect that a meeting was to be arranged between the City Commission and the BGHA to discuss the possibility of annexing the Okeechobee Center. Of who made the annexation request or whether any meeting was ever held.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/942200A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lines 1 2 the sentence is changed to begin
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0434p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Appellee is the Board of Education of Hamilton County. Hamilton County Board of Education Page 2 appropriate public education
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/97-5091.opn.html">BURTON V. CITY OF BELLE GLADE (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5091)<BR></A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reverse and remand Appellants' cause of action to enforce Title VI's disparate impact regulations for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/022458P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant argues that the district court erred in relying on a policy statement issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1317.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Because we reverse the conviction on the clearer ground that the trial evidence mustered by the government was insufficient to support a guilty verdict. Hold that the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted on all counts. Is inadequate to support convictions on either the wire fraud or computer fraud charges. The defendant Czubinski was employed as a Contact 2 Representative in the Boston office of the Taxpayer Services Division of the Internal Revenue Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug95/94-4403.man.html">TAMIAMI PARTNERS V. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Tamiami Partners v. The officers of these tribal entities who are responsible for overseeing the gaming operation (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/97-5091.opn.html">BURTON V. CITY OF BELLE GLADE (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5091)<BR></A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reverse and remand Appellants' cause of action to enforce Title VI's disparate impact regulations for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/951885P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rosenstiel and Longley seek a declaration that several provisions of the law are unconstitutional because they allegedly coerce a candidate into participating in Minnesota's public campaign financing program. They further maintain that the provisions are constitutionally infirm The Honorable Richard H. No refund is permitted for a campaign contribution made to a candidate who is not publicly funded. Id. § 290.06(23) (hereinafter referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315884.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While the cruise ship was in the Port of Miami. Six of the crewmembers represented in this action were killed and four were injured.1 Each crewmember's employment agreement with Defendant NCL includes an arbitration clause. Plaintiffs' appeal presents an issue of first impression in this Circuit: whether the crewmembers' employment agreements were shielded from arbitration by the seamen employment contract exemption contained in section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The injured crewmembers are plaintiffappellants in this case along with personal representatives of the decedents.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2647.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Background</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> The Narragansetts were aboriginal inhabitants of what is now Rhode Island. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug95/94-4403.man.html">TAMIAMI PARTNERS V. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Tamiami Partners v. The officers of these tribal entities who are responsible for overseeing the gaming operation (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1266.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Garin</SPAN> were on the brief. Were on the brief. Plaintiffs are active duty members of the military. Plaintiffs argue that the October Resolution is constitutionally inadequate to authorize the military offensive that defendants are now planning against Iraq. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1966OPN2.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Russoniello</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE0A858C82A2EA8F88256D4E007A736C/$file/0156380.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: There is no reason inherent in the technological features of cyberspace why First Amendment and defamation law should apply differently in cyberspace than in the brick and mortar world. Has chosen for policy reasons to immunize from liability for defamatory or obscene speech
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAEEE3BDCD66FF5388256D40007BA5FC/$file/0235361.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because MPC's lobbying efforts were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan97/96-2162.wpd.html">PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA V. KELLY<BR></A><BR>
Give life to a compact which was void from its inception because the state governor who signed the compact lacked the authority under state law to sign on behalf of the state. Vivify that which was never alive. Pueblo of Taos are federally recognized Indian tribes in New Mexico. Plaintiff and appellant San Felipe Gaming Enterprise Board is a gaming enterprise chartered under the laws of the Pueblo of San Felipe.(1) The Tribes have been operating casinos and other gaming facilities in New Mexico. Lacked the authority to do so and at least suggested that New Mexico law did not permit the kind of gambling they were conducting. Seeking a declaration that the Tribes were conducting gambling in violation of federal and state law. Joined the State of New Mexico as a party.(2) (1) We will hereafter refer to the Pueblo tribes as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/98-5405a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Robin W. With her on the brief were Lois J. Erwin was on the brief for amici curiae Dale Bondurant. Featherly was on the brief for amici curiae Mary Bishop. Circuit Judge: The Alaska Legislative Council is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B32E0913B3FFBB188256E5A00707A32/$file/9917424.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The providers are exempted from the standard drug approval requirements imposed by the Food and Drug Administration. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I Plaintiffs are a group of licensed pharmacies. They have prepared written promotional materials that they distribute by mail and at medical conferences to inform patients and physicians of the uses and effectiveness of specific compounded drugs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/15FBB3688F2009AF88256E5A00707A3A/$file/0016163.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Low is substituted for his predecessor as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of California. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are three insurance companies and one trade organization of insurance companies who do business in California. To persons in Europe to file certain information about those policies with the Commissioner.1 Cal. 1 The information that the insurance companies must provide is: (1) the number of insurance policies. The reporting requirement also applies to insurance companies that do business in California and are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/006115P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Order of the Bankruptcy Court will be affirmed. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are straightforward and uncontroverted.3 The Debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of North Dakota on September 7. Wayne Drewes was appointed as the Chapter 7 trustee. Nearly five months after his bankruptcy petition was filed. The Trustee and the Debtor entered into a stipulation of facts which was incorporated into both of the parties' appellate briefs. 2 3 ISSUE The issue on appeal is whether the MLAP and CDP payments received postpetition by the Debtor were or were not property of the bankruptcy estate.4 STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the findings of fact of the bankruptcy court for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. The determination of whether property constitutes property of the bankruptcy estate is a legal issue to be reviewed de novo. DISCUSSION The Trustee argues that the Bankruptcy Court erred when it determined that the CDP and MLAP payments received by the Debtor postpetition were not property of the bankruptcy estate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5024.html">ROBERT O. MUDGE V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Gregory O Duden</u>. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F48E2BCB53CC88FD882569EB0062542F/$file/9917424.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The providers are exempted from the standard drug approval requirements imposed by the Food and Drug Administration. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I Plaintiffs are a group of licensed pharmacies. They have prepared written promotional materials that they distribute by mail and at medical conferences to inform patients and physicians of the uses and effectiveness of specific compounded drugs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1994/94a0762p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D63E625B2C358DF882569EC0069E419/$file/0016163.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Low is substituted for his predecessor as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of California. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are three insurance companies and one trade organization of insurance companies who do business in California. To persons in Europe to file certain information about those policies with the Commissioner.1 Cal. 1 The information that the insurance companies must provide is: (1) the number of insurance policies. The reporting requirement also applies to insurance companies that do business in California and are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></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-3.gif" ALT="312"></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-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1949p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It also held that the defense of legal impossibility does not pertain to the attempt and conspiracy crimes with which the defendants are charged. We will affirm the court's holding regarding the applicability of the defense of legal impossibility. Will reverse its discovery order and remand for a review of other asserted defenses to the crimes in the indictment. The factual summary that follows is based entirely on the as yet unproven allegations in the July 1997 indictment. Because this is an interlocutory appeal. The record is not complete. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></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-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411302.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal raises the question of whether individual state legislators are entitled to absolute legislative immunity from official capacity suits for prospective relief. Because the state legislators are entitled to absolute legislative immunity. Is a former DeKalb County Commissioner. The area of DeKalb County where Scott resides was removed from district three and added to district five. She was not elected to the Commission in the November 2002 elections. She alleged that she was moved out of the third district in an effort to achieve a majority black Commission and that this constituted wrongful racial discrimination and violated 42 U.S.C. § 2 1983. All four of these defendants (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/051795P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are unconstitutional and preempted by the Federal Election Campaign Act. Concluding that Appellants have standing. Appellants assert that these activities are expressly permitted by FECA and its implementing regulations. Appellants have refrained from making political contributions because they
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/05-1222a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Steven S. With him on the briefs were James R. Berg were on the brief for amicus curiae Airports Council International North America in support of petitioner Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and in opposition to petitioners Brendan Airways. Frantz was on the brief for amicus curiae United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in support of petitioners Brendan Airways. With her on the brief were Thomas O. McIntyre were on the brief for intervenor Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in support of the respondents. Weiss and John Longstreth were on the brief for intervenors Brendan Airways. Claiming the rates were unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory. Disputing the DOT's evidentiary rulings and its finding that the proposed fees were nondiscriminatory. Contending its rate calculations were in fact reasonable. Carriers operating international flights out of ITB pay the Port Authority Federal Inspection Facility Space (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/024046p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Daffy's is a chain of retail clothing stores specializing in selling popular brands of goods and apparel at discount prices. Inc. was recognized as a reputable supplier. The events leading to the purchase began when a representative of Sara's approached Daffy's regarding some Gucci handbags that were being diverted to the United States from a merchant in the Far East. Although Daffy's representatives were confident that the bags were genuine. A Daffy's employee presented one of the bags to the Gucci clerk and informed the clerk that she had received the bag as a gift 3 and was not certain of its authenticity. The employee asked the clerk to examine the bag and confirm that it was genuine. Informed the Daffy's employee that the bag was authentic. That conclusion was based on certain indicia of authenticity including the quality of fabric and leather. Daffy's also sent one of the bags it had purchased that was damaged to the Gucci repair center in New York for repair. Daffy's concluded that the bags it had purchased from Sara's were genuine Gucci bags.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july97/96-2185.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. CORROW<BR></A><BR>
A word in the opinion is erroneously spelled. He contends the definition is unconstitutionally vague. Ray Winnie was a hataali. Yei B'Chei or Yei B'Chei jish are ceremonial adornments. Is an afficionado of Navajo culture and religion. Corrow telling him that a wealthy Chicago surgeon was interested in purchasing a set of Yei B'Chei. The purported buyer was James Tanner. Yet once he was in Santa Fe. In the cardboard box was the set of twenty two Yei B'Chei. Selling these medicine bundles or jish is the wife of the late Mr. Whose signatures are below. The selling price is in cash of $10. Corrow asserts the court erred in failing to dismiss Count one on the ground the NAGPRA definition of cultural patrimony is unconstitutionally vague. Trapping the unwary in its multitude of meanings and creating easy prey for the untrammeled discretion of law enforcement.(2) Were NAGPRA's definitional bounds nevertheless discernible. Corrow then urges the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on either count.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/12/054468P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Spears was arrested. The resulting advisory Guidelines sentencing range was 324 to 405 months' imprisonment. Sufficiency of the Evidence Spears first argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. He asserts the witnesses' testimonies were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></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-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec95/94-2131.html">ARMIJO V. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO.<BR></A><BR>
Who were terminated by Prudential Insurance Co. of America (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/340E07618AF6F116882570740058195B/$file/0270262.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The California energy crisis of 2000 and 2001 is a subject that is well known to this court and to the public.1 Following 1 See California ex rel. Various non public utilities which somewhat confusingly are public. Are not classified by federal statute as public utilities challenge the refund orders. Are not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1093p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Factual Background and Procedural History This appeal arises in a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) case in which the employer is New Jersey Transit Rail Operations. Cars are connected to each other by vestibules. Which are enclosed areas located just outside the passenger seating compartments of each car. Appellant Thomas Fashauer was performing his usual duties as brakeman on a New Jersey Transit train en route from Lindenwold. Signaling the engineer that the platform was clear and that the train could depart. It was raining heavily. The rug on the vestibule floor was soaked when the train arrived at the Atco station on the last run of the day. Fashauer was not holding on to the handrails at the time. He testified that he was in agony at the time. Alleging that his injury was proximately caused by New Jersey Transit's negligence. The case was tried between March 7. New Jersey Transit defended against Fashauer's claims by presenting evidence that the seals were not defective. The slippery condition was purely the result of the rainy weather.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/002788P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this case is whether certain provisions of Missouri law are preempted by the Employee's Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Arguing that the Missouri provisions could not be enforced because they were preempted by ERISA. I. The Missouri legislation which led to this lawsuit was enacted in 1997. A maintenance prescription is one providing medication to treat a medical condition for a period of greater than 30 days. If any such contract is rejected by any pharmacy provider. 3 unless such limit is applied uniformly to all pharmacy providers in the health maintenance organization's network. Are preempted by ERISA. After discovery was complete. That the existence of ERISA plans is not essential to their operation. It also concluded that the statutes were saved from ERISA preemption because they regulate HMOs which are in the business of insurance. They say that the statutes are within the scope of ERISA preemption because they relate to employee benefit plans since they directly regulate health benefit plans and impact plan structure.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/993536P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have each brought Rule 10b 52 actions against Green Tree Financial Corporation. Contending that their complaints were indeed sufficient to plead securities fraud. Green Tree is a financial services corporation that originally specialized in lending money on house trailers. Because manufactured housing loans are classified as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2186.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Contending that his inability to vote for the President and Vice President of the United States of America on account of his residency in Puerto Rico is a redressable violation of his right to equal protection as a United States citizen. A has raised no argument that would bring the matter outside the usual
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F674E8F6048714988256FFF007E8110/$file/0535005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Santiago's eight year enlistment in the Guard was due to expire on June 27. Shortly before that date his enlistment was extended by a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A55B0A871363802088257089007CBA32/$file/0535005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: At page 1022. First new paragraph: modify the first full sentence so that it states:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></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-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1996/96a1337p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal questions we must decide are whether county prosecutors in New Jersey act as state or county officials when they make personnel decisions and whether the district court properly exercised in personam jurisdiction. We will reverse the May 4. We will affirm the district court's denial of Kaye's motion. We will remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Barbara Coleman was employed as an investigator at the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office during John Kaye's tenure as Monmouth County Prosecutor. It is uncontested that he possessed the final authority to determine who worked for the Monmouth County Prosecutor and in what capacity. She was not promoted to either position. Coleman's applications to be promoted to sergeant were denied in both June and October of 1990. A male investigator was promoted over Coleman. The County of Monmouth was not named separately as a defendant. The summons and complaint were served upon Kaye. The case was sent to the jury. (3) Kaye and/or one or more of his subordinates who made recommendations to him intentionally discriminated against Coleman because she was a woman.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/98-5756.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DUARTE-ACERO (4/13/2000, NO. 98-5756)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This is an interlocutory appeal of a district court decision denying appellant's motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds. <EM>See United States v. That he was convicted in Colombia of the same conduct alleged in the instant indictment. The four men abducted two DEA agents (who were investigating drug trafficking between Colombia and the United States) from their hotel room and. </EM> 28 F.Supp.2d at 1363 64.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/98-5756.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DUARTE-ACERO (4/13/2000, NO. 98-5756)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This is an interlocutory appeal of a district court decision denying appellant's motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds. <EM>See United States v. That he was convicted in Colombia of the same conduct alleged in the instant indictment. The four men abducted two DEA agents (who were investigating drug trafficking between Colombia and the United States) from their hotel room and. </EM> 28 F.Supp.2d at 1363 64.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/04-1438b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Less radiation is absorbed. Increased human exposure to ultraviolet radiation is linked to a range of ailments. Methyl bromide under a schedule that is in accordance with. The phaseout schedule of the Montreal
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200311/02-5277a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971697.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 3 the read as follows: judges are corrected to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002414.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is the owner of the well known Harrods of London department store. The defendants are 60 Internet domain names (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-2952.opn.html">GONZALEZ V. LEE COUNTY HOUS. AUTH. (12/2/1998, NO. 97-2952)<BR></A><BR>
A reasonable person in Moran's position would not have known that Gonzalez's letter of September 28. A reasonable person in Moran's position would have known that her termination of Gonzalez's employment was unlawful. <U>See</U> . Moran told Gonzalez that she did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing unit.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1187p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It seeks to have the County's flow control plan declared unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause. Pennsylvania was no exception. Methods less protective of the environment generally have lower capital and operating costs. Most waste disposal facilities were privately owned and operated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-2952.opn.html">GONZALEZ V. LEE COUNTY HOUS. AUTH. (12/2/1998, NO. 97-2952)<BR></A><BR>
A reasonable person in Moran's position would not have known that Gonzalez's letter of September 28. A reasonable person in Moran's position would have known that her termination of Gonzalez's employment was unlawful. <U>See</U> . Moran told Gonzalez that she did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing unit.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1224o.html">DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE V. WILLIAM HOGARTH<BR></A><BR>
Filed a petition for rehearing en banc for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the petition was <u>Kumar Vaswani</u>.</p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> . Filed a response to the petition for the defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the response were <u>Peter D. Deputy Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the response were <u>Anthony P. </o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%'><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by the Appellants. A response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This matter was referred first as a petition for rehearing to the merits panel that heard the appeal.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Thereafter. Response were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll whether to rehear the appeal en banc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>A poll was requested.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/02-2244.htm">02-2244 -- HOMANS V. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE -- 04/27/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1275.html">ROTEC INDUSTRIES, INC. V. MITSUBISHI CORP.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <U>John J. With him on the brief were <U>Debra Rae Bernard</U> and <U>Walter M. We affirm. </P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200104/99-1532a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief was Dennis Lane. McGrew were on the brief for intervenors California Electricity Oversight Board and California Power Exchange Corporation. All but one of the petitioners' claims have become moot. Which received control of certain power transmission assets from the state's three major inves tor owned utilities and was charged with running a single statewide transmission grid. Which was to be responsible for matching electricity buyers and sellers in the California market. Which (so far as is relevant here) was vested with review power over the composition of the ISO and PX boards and over decisions of the ISO Board. Were that the duties of the Oversight Board conflicted with the Commission's responsibilities under the Federal Power Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/019661EF3BAAF4C488256D1D00793D3A/$file/0115098o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LOCKYER The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The right to keep and bear arms is in no way absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions such as those embedded in the statute the California legislature enacted. This case should have been reheard en banc. Dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc: Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held. We can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there. It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution. The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights. They have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1532a.html">WESTERN POWER TRADING FORUM V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for respondent.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5178a.html">FL AUDBN SCTY V. BENTSEN L.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/952841P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Waivers are permitted if the Secretary of Transportation or his agent
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023727p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The main issue presented in these appeals is Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Because we conclude that the District Court's referral was an improper delegation of its traditional adjudicatory function. Factual Background and Procedural History This is the second time this CERCLA contribution action has been before us. The chief tasks on remand were to determine which of Beazer's response costs were necessary and consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The court may allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/97-1442.htm">97-1442 -- U.S. V. BURCH -- 03/04/1999<BR></A><BR>
Which was construed as a motion to vacate. The government's evidence is insufficient to permit us to take judicial notice of where the offense was committed. We vacate the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/95-3373.htm">95-3373 -- FOWLER V. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 259 (KANSAS) -- 11/04/1997<BR></A><BR>
We have considered the parties' briefs. As they were stated in our prior panel decision. We only present essential facts as necessary for us to address the effect of the IDEA Amendments on this case. <p> Michael Fowler is a profoundly deaf twelve year old boy who. He is also gifted. That denial was upheld through administrative proceedings. <p> When the Fowlers appealed the denial to the district court. States electing to participate in this system of grants must establish and have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3E763F94EABA9BA88256C3900545AFC/$file/0155466.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is August 23. Once probable cause was established. Who could avoid forfeiture only by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was not subject to forfeiture. CAFRA transferred the burden of proof from the claimant to the government and required the government to establish forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence rather than by the lower probable cause standard: In a suit or action brought under any civil forfeiture statute for the civil forfeiture of any property (1) the burden of proof is on the Government to establish. That the property is subject to forfeiture . . . . 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1).2 In section 21 of the Act. This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to any forfeiture proceeding commenced on or after the date that is 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Because CAFRA was enacted on April 25. This effective date is August 23. Which was pending in the district court on CAFRA's effective date. Invoking the general rule that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1519.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution is a citizen passed campaign finance reform amendment designed to limit the influence of certain types of corporations' general funds on state elections. Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman is automatically substituted for former Colorado Secretary of State Gigi Dennis as the Defendant Appellant/Cross Appellee in this case. <hr> part to CRLC and in part to the Secretary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. We hold that the challenged sections of Article XXVIII regulating corporate expenditures and electioneering communications are unconstitutional as applied to CRLC because CRLC meets Supreme Court approved exemption requirements for a voluntary ideological corporation that seeks to engage in political speech. We conclude that Article XXVIII's definition of a political committee is unconstitutional as applied to CRLC because it fails to incorporate Buckley v. That political contributions from corporate treasuries are not an indication of popular support for the corporation's political ideas and can unfairly influence theoutcome of Colorado's elections.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov97/95-3373.wpd.html">FOWLER V. UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 259<BR></A><BR>
We have considered the parties' briefs. We again reverse the district court's decision and remand for further proceedings. (1) Our decision was vacated along with all other cases with petitions for certiorari pending before the Supreme Court which involved the same or similar issues as the ones presented in this case. As they were stated in our prior panel decision. Michael Fowler is a profoundly deaf twelve year old boy who. He is also gifted. That denial was upheld through administrative proceedings. States electing to participate in this system of grants must establish and have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D11A39AF8E498C3F88256DF300616260/$file/0136045.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Anderson was subsequently served with a notice that Wills must vacate the premises or fill out an application and be approved to live in the unit. Left on a trip to California and were gone for more than a week. On the same day the action was filed. All full time United States Magistrates in the District of Oregon have been certified to exercise civil jurisdiction in assigned cases. Parties are 17124 ANDERSON v. Both parties needed to consent to the magistrate judge's authority to enter judgment for the magistrate judge to have jurisdiction over WoodCreek's motion to dismiss and Anderson and Wills's summary judgment motion. Anderson and Wills's next pleading was filed May 27. Was titled in part
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/044DE357BD726D7288256DF10063BDE4/$file/0255082.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are legal and social service organizations and two individuals who seek to provide
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/003188.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Howerter contends that his conduct is not proscribed by the federal bank larceny statute. We will REVERSE.1 I. Howerter was the treasurer of the Wuerzbur g American High School Parent Teacher Student Association (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTgwMTktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-8019-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The action was brought by Michael L. Is a deceptive forced sale scheme. Which in their view is worse than a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/02-5354b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With them on the brief were Alex Levinson. Dawson were on the brief of amici curiae American Association for Law Libraries. We will assume familiarity with both opinions and state only the essentials. The ultimate issue is whether this court should issue a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to dismiss the case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1702.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lorincz & Jacobi were on brief for appellee. Debtor's appeal from that decision asks us to do two things: reverse the district court's holding that federal credit unions are nonprofit organizations and hold that educational loans issued to him by creditor appellee TI Federal Credit Union are. We affirm the result achieved by the district court that debtor's loans are nondischargeable and elect not to reach the issue of federal credit unions' nonprofit status. From which DelBonis obtained no direct personal benefit and on which he is the sole obligor. Were acquired from the Texas Instrument Federal Credit Union. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/02-1287a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211727.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is the consolidation of six separate appeals. Were targeted at avoiding the taxes the Republics placed on tobacco imported into their respective countries. The Revenue Rule The revenue rule is a long standing common law rule that prevents the courts of one sovereign from enforcing or adjudicating tax claims from another sovereign.1 Although 18th century English courts originally developed the rule to protect British trade. 2 it has a long history of recognition and application in this country.3 The rule was originally justified in England on the basis of nationalistic commercial protectionism. 4 but its application in this country is based and justified on the grounds of respect for sovereignty and the separation of powers. Substance over form We initially recognize that it is the substance of a claim. That is important under the revenue rule. 268 F.3d at 130 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/96-5375.man.html">BLEDSOE V. PALM BEACH COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIST. (1/22/1998, NO. 96-5375)<BR></A><BR>
We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>BACKGROUND</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Bledsoe was employed as a Resource Technician for the District from January 1988 until his termination in October of 1992. Against the District and Palm Beach County alleging that both of those entities were his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3205.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the en banc court is evenly divided. Elite failed to verify that all of its new employees were authorized to work in the United States. Zamora was a Mexican citizen who had been a permanent legal resident of the United States since 1987. Zamora also filled out an I 9 form truthfully indicating that he was a Mexican citizen and a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Elite received a tip that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)(3) was going to investigate warehouses in the area. Elite was particularly concerned about such an investigation in light of its earlier hiring practices in June 2000. This investigation indicated that someone other than Zamora had been using the same social security number that he was using.(4) The investigation turned up similar problems with thirty five other employees' social security numbers. Tucker followed this same procedure with the other thirty five employees whose social security numbers raised concerns.(5) The memorandum Tucker gave Zamora and the other affected workers read: It is required by federal law that all employees produce documents.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054832p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Marc Ricks pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy charge and was sentenced to 135 months in prison. Was sentenced to 168 months in prison after pleading guilty to drug conspiracy. Arguing that they are unreasonable because the District Court improperly used a 20 to 1 crack/powder cocaine drug quantity ratio instead of the 100 to 1 ratio provided for in the Sentencing Guidelines. We will vacate both sentences and remand to the District Court for resentencing.1 I. The District Court concluded that each brother was responsible for distributing at least 2000 grams of cocaine base (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054740p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court ruled that the Secretary's recommendations were invalid and the Secretary has appealed. Whether the portion of the Department of Defense report that recommends deactivation of the 111 th Fighter Wing is null and void because Governor Rendell did not consent to the deactivation. Which reads: To secure a force the units of which when combined will form complete higher tactical units. (Emphasis added) The District Court based its conclusion on the premise that the Secretary's recommendation was equivalent to a change and. We need not address the issue of justiciability because we conclude that the case is now moot. Hence we will vacate the District Court's February 7. The facts germane to our review are neither complex nor extensive. (DBCRA) Its purpose was to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053430p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stated that the bill was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984401.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant Mahmoud Hassouneh appeals his conviction for falsely stating that there was a bomb in the bag he sought to place aboard a civil aircraft. Hassouneh was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C.A. § 35(b) (West Supp. 1999). Hassouneh asserts that he was improperly prevented from presenting evidence relevant to showing that he did not act maliciously. It was the first day off from work that Hassouneh. Hassouneh's AirTran Airways flight was scheduled to depart at 8:20 a.m. Shortly after 7:00 a.m. he approached the ticket counter for AirTran Airways where he was greeted by two airline employees. There were some either Iraqi or Irani[an] . . . men outside who gave 1 AirTran Airways contracted Continental Airlines to check in and load the bags of AirTran passengers flying out of Piedmont Triad Airport. Havas and Nguyen were employed by Continental Airlines and were responsible for checking in passengers on AirTran flights. 2 me a bomb to put in my bag.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ3NzAtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4770-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The sole issue on this appeal is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041782p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-6226a.htm">01-6226A -- HARRIS V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. -- 08/15/2002<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-6226.htm">01-6226 -- SERVICE PROFESSIONALS, INC. V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY -- 08/15/2002<BR></A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/002771.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Discovered after oral argument that he was disqualified. Particularly the strength of the rule that such exemptions are construed narrowly against the party seeking them. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/02-9546.htm">02-9546 -- YUK V. ASHCROFT -- 01/20/2004<BR></A><BR>
Are natives and citizens of Cambodia.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/00-6183.htm">00-6183 -- MCCURDY GROUP, LLC V. AMERICAN BIOMEDICAL GROUP, INC. -- 05/21/2001<BR></A><BR>
1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Dave McCurdy is a former Oklahoma Congressman. McCurdy's intent was for MG
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/96-5375.man.html">BLEDSOE V. PALM BEACH COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIST. (1/22/1998, NO. 96-5375)<BR></A><BR>
We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>BACKGROUND</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Bledsoe was employed as a Resource Technician for the District from January 1988 until his termination in October of 1992. Against the District and Palm Beach County alleging that both of those entities were his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/97-1648a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were George A. With him on the briefs was Lawrence W. With him on the brief were Frank W. With him on the brief were Frank W. Both groups have brought petitions for judicial review of their designations pursuant to 8 U.S.C. s 1189(b)(1).1 1 Because these separate petitions involve the same statute and similar claims. I The statute before us is unique.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031122.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022199.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 2 and line 9 the citations are corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5169a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McBride argued the cause for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021413.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To enforce the principle that `no one is above the law'.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-1429.htm">03-1429 -- MAINSTREAM MARKETING SERVICES INC. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION -- 02/17/2004<BR></A><BR>
The primary issue in this case is whether the First Amendment prevents the government from establishing an opt in telemarketing regulation that provides a mechanism for consumers to restrict commercial sales calls but does not provide a similar mechanism to limit charitable or political calls.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/987156.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is whether the First Amendment precludes imposition of civil damages for the disclosure of portions of a tape recording of an intercepted telephone conversation containing information of public significance when the defendants. Wyoming Valley West School District was in contract negotiations with the Wyoming Valley West School District Teachers' Union (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1565.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lenehan & Iacopino were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. Remanded for the resentencing that is the origin of this appeal. Which are derived from the presentence investigation reports as well as the oral and documentary evidence introduced at the sentencing and resentencing hearings. Are as follows. Camilo was indicted with two co defendants on July 2. He was charged in count one with conspiracy to distribute cocaine base (or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ1NDMtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4543-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Jaeggi was the Senior Vice President of Finance and the Chief Financial Officer of Symbol Technologies. The two schemes are alleged to have involved conspiracy and substantive offenses of securities fraud. The government claimed these assets were proceeds of Jaeggi's illegal activity and would be forfeitable upon his conviction. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Jaeggi moved to vacate or modify the restraining order. That it was not authorized by Section 2461(c). DISCUSSION Whether Section 2461(c) authorizes pretrial restraint of putative forfeitable property is a legal issue that we review de novo. a) United States v. If that text is unambiguous. 92 (2d Cir. 2003). 2461(c) provides that If a forfeiture of property is authorized in connection with a violation of an Act of Congress. Any person is charged in an indictment or information with such violation but no specific statutory provision is made for criminal forfeiture upon conviction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEyMjQtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1224-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Yale successfully argued that the denial of the claims on the categorical ground of FDA classification was predicated on a rule altering the previous Medicare practice of conducting device by device review of safety and efficacy. That the rule change was improperly adopted. We agree with the district court that the new rule is unenforceable because the Secretary did not satisfactorily explain his reasons for its promulgation. Which at the time of the events at issue was administered by the Health Care Financing Administration (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/032652P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
$4.335 million in punitive LeeBoy is the tradename of the products manufactured by B.R. I DMI is a construction equipment dealer in South Dakota. The agreement also indicated either party could terminate the agreement with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1A051156659F65A38825713800825862/$file/0435599.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
AKRTL was informed by the Alaska Public Offices Commission that if it wished to engage in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/007665.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) & 2253. I Welch is a citizen of Panama who has been a permanent legal resident in the United States since he was ten years of age. Siblings and son are United States citizens. Welch served in the United States Navy and Naval Reserve for six years and was honorably discharged in 1994. While Welch was in State custody. The DOJ asserted that Welch was deportable pursuant to two subsections of former section 241 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act based on his State felony convictions. Id. § 1251 (a)(2)(C) (authorizing deportation for conviction for unlawfully possessing or carrying firearm).2 Soon after Welch was released from State custody. An immigration judge ordered Welch removed to Panama pursuant to former section 1 The terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/03/953279P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A. is the professional association in which Herby Branscum. P.A. is the professional association in which Robert M. The Special Division of the United States Starr's task was Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia appointed Kenneth W. Starr was given jurisdictional authority to investigate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTczNzgtY3YgdyBEaXNzZW50LnBkZg==/02-7378-cv%20w%20Dissent.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that the challenged employment practice was unreasonable. Plaintiffs are former employees of defendant Knolls Atomic The complete procedural history of this case in the district court can be found at Meacham. There was sufficient evidence of an equally effective alternative to the subjective components of the IRIF to support liability. 71 76. Which issued while defendants' petition for 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a writ of certiorari was pending. We have considered City of Jackson and the parties' supplemental briefing. I. The Lab is funded by the United States Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Program (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971459.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Contending that the redistricting plan was racially based. The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing because the plaintiffs. Who are white. Plaintiffs have again failed to offer evidence sufficient to warrant a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Plaintiffs appear to be dissatisfied that white candidates were not elected in direct proportion to the racial population percentages.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/002901.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. At issue in this case is the interpretation of a Closing Agreement between the Internal Revenue Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1979.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Sheketoff & Homan was on brief. Was on brief. Sean's parentage was an ongoing source of friction in what charitably can be called a stormy relationship. Shanahan testified that Sean awoke while she was preparing the evening meal. What happened next is hotly disputed. There is little disagreement as to subsequent events. Shanahan noticed that Sean's face was puffy. The investigating officer consulted with the pathologist who performed the autopsy and ascertained that Sean's injuries could not have occurred in this manner. The petitioner strove to show that Sean exhibited symptoms of a head injury prior to the time that Darlene claimed to have seen the petitioner heave the baby into the air. The presence of so called cold symptoms before dinner on October 2 symptoms that the petitioner insists were in fact indicia of cranial trauma took on vital importance. She first noticed that Sean was not feeling well later that evening. The petitioner's counsel countered that a reference to the second statement was proper because it impeached Shanahan's explanation for the inconsistency between her trial testimony and her October 7 account.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-5169a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Eve J. With him on the brief was Roscoe C. We hold that dismissal was proper because Hershey failed to exhaust its administrative reme dies. Applying to different geographic regions and classifying milk according to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/95-8374.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-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/95-8374.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-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2735.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I have before me motions for leave to file amicus curiae briefs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5098.html">EL-SHIFA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Timothy J. Ambrose</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Christopher J. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas L. Line height:200%'><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>The complaint states that Idris is a highly successful Saudi banker who was born and raised in Sudan.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The chain of events leading up to the instant lawsuit began in March 1998. El Shifa was the sole and exclusive owner of a manufacturing facility located in Khartoum. ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The appellants allege that El Shifa was the largest pharmaceutical manufacturing company in Sudan and that it used the Plant to supply drugs sorely needed by the impoverished people living in that country.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText style='text indent:.5in'><span style='mso bidi font size: 12.0pt.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0390p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Police Officers' appeal is limited to their claims about the City's compensatory leave policy arising out of the denials of their requests for their accrued compensatory leave. We conclude that the statutory phrase
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044498p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court was persuaded. That political affiliation was a cognizable class under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and. The Court was also persuaded that Farber's claim that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in refusing to pursue a grievance on her behalf had been timely filed. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. 2 I. Background and Procedural History We have before us a classic example of political patronage. Was terminated from her administrative. She was informed of her termination in a letter from the City's Assistant Personnel Director. Was later hired to fill her position. A meeting was held between the Union and City representatives. Citing the fact that she was a provisional employee who could be terminated at will.1 Farber alleges that the Union's president. Was thereafter appointed as the City's Director of Public Public employment in Paterson is governed by the New Jersey Civil Service Act. The Act distinguishes between employees who are
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<!-- End of real page content -->
<!-- kludgy empty paragraph acts as spacer -->
<P></P>
<!-- This is the place for the lower nav bar and footer -->
<!-- the following is Mason-included: footer.htm -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close extra div (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close middle (opened in header.htm) -->
<div id="footer">
<div class="footerNav">
<div><!-- getting ridiculous, i know -->
<ul>
<li><a href="/lii.html" class="nav">about us</a></li>
<li><a href="/tour.html" class="nav" id="liisitemaplink" title="lii sitemap">sitemap</a></li>
<li><a href="/help/" class="nav">help</a></li>
<li><a href="/comments/credits.html" class="nav">terms of use</a></li>
</ul>
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close ridiculous div -->
</div><!-- close footerNav -->
</div><!-- close footer -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close collection (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close ours (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close container (opened in header.htm) -->
<!-- end of included footer -->
</BODY>
</HTML>
<!-- end of HTML -->
<!-- code from here on down -->
<!-- input arguments are:
a query (optional)
-->
<!-- to begin with...
This init block sets up and runs the query.
-->
<!-- select correct options based on scope -->
|
