Your query (fair or equal) and housing
returned 1930 results.
Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
OPINION/ORDER
The Plaintiffs say the Defendants designed and constructed residences that were not accessible to handicapped persons as required by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (
OPINION/ORDER
The district court's grant of summary judgment was based on its conclusion that the FHC lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to maintain this suit. Because we are convinced by the unique set of facts surrounding the section 3604(c) claims that the FHC has failed to satisfy the
OPINION/ORDER
The Cities argue that their ordinances are reasonable occupancy 1 Housing Advocates also named the City of Richmond Heights. Although I concur in the majority's ultimate judgment that the ordinances at issue here were reasonable. I. Housing Advocates is a
OPINION/ORDER
Fair Housing of Marin is a non profit community organization in San Rafael. Conducts tests of housing facilities to determine whether equal opportunity in housing is provided. Fair Housing received complaints that Combs was racially discriminating against black tenants and black potential tenants. Fair Housing conducted two sets of controlled tests where a black tester was shown a unit at Waters Edge followed by a white tester. Whether a community fair housing organization has standing to sue a private party for violations of the Fair Housing Act is a question of first impression for this circuit. Racial steering is the
OPINION/ORDER
It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written.
The Central Alabama Fair Housing Center argues that the district court erred in instructing the jury that the Center's right to recover was contingent upon a finding that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against the individual plaintiffs. Remand for a new trial.
The Central Alabama Fair Housing Center argues that the district court erred in instructing the jury that the Center's right to recover was contingent upon a finding that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against the individual plaintiffs. Remand for a new trial.
OPINION/ORDER
The Central Alabama Fair Housing Center argues that the district court erred in instructing the jury that the Center's right to recover was contingent upon a finding that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against the individual plaintiffs. I. The individual plaintiffs are six African Americans who sought to purchase homes in Montgomery. This action was the only case to be tried during the term. After the venire was sworn by the clerk. After voir dire was completed. One of which was granted. Both of whom were struck by the court. Of the prospective jurors the first fourteen remaining on the venire eleven were white and three were black. The district court found that a prima facie case was established because
OPINION/ORDER
The Central Alabama Fair Housing Center argues that the district court erred in instructing the jury that the Center's right to recover was contingent upon a finding that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against the individual plaintiffs. I. The individual plaintiffs are six African Americans who sought to purchase homes in Montgomery. This action was the only case to be tried during the term. After the venire was sworn by the clerk. After voir dire was completed. One of which was granted. Both of whom were struck by the court. Of the prospective jurors the first fourteen remaining on the venire eleven were white and three were black. The district court found that a prima facie case was established because
OPINION/ORDER
Lapid's primary contentions on appeal are that: (1) because the Board failed to engage in the
OPINION/ORDER
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
OPINION/ORDER
Were on briefs for appellees Marisa Lago. Paul Holtzman and Krokidas & Bluestein were on brief for Robert H. Was on brief for Henry G. The plaintiffs in this case are former residents of Boston's Old West End who were forced to relocate when their homes were taken by eminent domain for urban renewal. That they are being denied this preference in a new development called West End Place because most former West Enders are white. The background facts are undisputed. The plan was approved as required under Massachusetts law. Luxury 1The BRA is an entity established by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to undertake urban renewal projects and to relieve housing shortages. The new buildings were either nonresidential or so expensive that very few of the former West Enders could afford to occupy them. A proposal was submitted by the Lowell Square Cooperative Limited Partnership (the
OPINION/ORDER
Nebraska (Local Office). 1988 in the district FAIR was denied access to the Local Office. Concluding that FAIR's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated because: (1) the Local Office's policy was not vague. (2) the Local Office was not a public forum. (3) the Local Office's regulation of expressive conduct was reasonable. (4) the Local Office's prohibition on FAIR's efforts to advocate its position to a captive audience was not motivated by opposition to its viewpoint. The requirement of independent appellate review is a rule of federal constitutional law. We are obliged to make a fresh examination of crucial facts. This Court's
OPINION/ORDER
ORDER The Opinion in this case was filed November 9. A timely petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc was filed. Is deleted. A substituted footnote 2 is inserted in its place. The question of whether the FHA generally applies to homeless shelters was not at issue because the parties did not dispute that the FHA applied. We have never squarely addressed the issue of whether all temporary shelters fit within the Act's definition of
OPINION/ORDER
Which was managed by CHI and provided housing to men. The women and families were removed from Community House. The plaintiffs assert that the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction that (1) would have COMMUNITY HOUSE v. (2) would have voided the City's lease with the BRM. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We reverse the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction that would have required reinstatement of all former residents. Because the City's men only policy is facially discriminatory. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion by determining that only a limited injunction was necessary to avoid an Establishment Clause violation. A broader preliminary injunction is required. Which they have raised for the first time in this appeal. I. BACKGROUND CHI is a non profit corporation that provides housing services to homeless and low income persons. About seventy five percent of its residents were disabled. The BRM is a Christian non profit organization that has served the homeless population of Boise.
OPINION/ORDER
The district court held that the state's exclusion of the group did not violate the The policy employed to decide which persons are permitted access to the lobby is vague and subject to For this reason. The facts of this trial case and BACKGROUND are essentially on a undisputed. for After a consolidated bench hearing request preliminary injunction. Families Achieving Independence and Respect (FAIR) is a looselyorganized group of past and current welfare recipients providing educational support for low income persons. system' and 'welfare reform.'
1985 and 1988 and that the action was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Included among these landowners was Conley. Who is black. Was comprised of 103. Which was located behind its medical building. Was rejected. Which is a large tract of land comprised of many lots. Which was led by ASU's vice president and one of ASU's trustees.
1985 and 1988 and that the action was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Included among these landowners was Conley. Who is black. Was comprised of 103. Which was located behind its medical building. Was rejected. Which is a large tract of land comprised of many lots. Which was led by ASU's vice president and one of ASU's trustees.
OPINION/ORDER
The district court found that the residents had failed to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act and that the rest of their claims were time barred. Appellants seek to derail this highway construction project years after the original siting decision was made. Most of their claims are 3 now stale. There is one exception: We reinstate as timely appellants' challenge to the agencies' decision not to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement in 1995. We also hold that appellants' Title VI and section 1985 claims against the federal defendants are barred by sovereign immunity. Route 50 is the principal latitudinal artery spanning Maryland's eastern peninsula. Their remedy of choice was to construct a bypass around the City. In order to receive federal funding for the Bypass the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) was required to follow the approval process established under the Federal Aid Highway Act (FAHA). Although the details of this process have evolved since 1975. Its essential mandates have remained constant.
OPINION/ORDER
OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was argued before the en banc Court on February 27. (2) holding that the establishment of a magnet schools program was an ultra vires. King and Gregory in the affirmative) attorneys' fees for work done on the unitary status issue are denied. Nominal damages and attorneys' fees in that regard are denied. The injunction is vacated. The imposition of sanctions is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed on the finding of unitary status and the imposition of sanctions. The judgment of the district court vacating and dissolving all prior injunctive orders and decrees is affirmed. The Board is to operate the school system without the strictures of these decrees no later than the 2002 2003 school year. Circuit Judge: This case is hopefully the final chapter in the saga of federal court control over the Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools (
OPINION/ORDER
1985 and 1988 and that the action was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. An order remanding a civil action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to §§ 1441 and 1447(c) is not reviewable. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Allowed Conley's appeal to proceed to the extent he is challenging the district court's implicit determination that removal based on § 1443 was improper. The only question presently before us is whether the district court properly remanded Conley's action based on a finding that removal jurisdiction under § 1443 did not exist. The facts are drawn from the allegations in Conley's removal petition. Which we assume are true for purposes of this appeal. 2 2 1 property owners.3 Then. Included among these landowners was Conley. Who is black. Was comprised of 103. Which was located behind its medical building. Was rejected. ASU was able to obtain land from black property owners in Bel Aire at less than fair market value before instituting eminent domain proceedings. Who then had difficulty resettling because ASU's below market compensation for the land was inadequate to permit the black property owners to purchase real estate elsewhere.
OPINION/ORDER
1985 and 1988 and that the action was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. An order remanding a civil action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to §§ 1441 and 1447(c) is not reviewable. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Allowed Conley's appeal to proceed to the extent he is challenging the district court's implicit determination that removal based on § 1443 was improper. The only question presently before us is whether the district court properly remanded Conley's action based on a finding that removal jurisdiction under § 1443 did not exist. 1 I. Included among these landowners was Conley. Who is black. Was comprised of 103. Which was located behind its medical building. Was rejected. The facts are drawn from the allegations in Conley's removal petition. Which we assume are true for purposes of this appeal. ASU was able to obtain land from black property owners in Bel Aire at less than fair market value before instituting eminent domain proceedings. Who then had difficulty resettling because ASU's below market compensation for the land was inadequate to permit the black property owners to purchase real estate elsewhere.
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the order of the district court. Describes itself as a non profit organization whose
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Were on brief. A developer must get the written endorsement of the chief elected official of the municipality where the project is proposed. This is the Board of Selectmen (
Michael L. It is a federally funded and supervised rent subsidy program for low income tenants. It is administered primarily through local units called public housing authorities or
OPINION/ORDER
Who are also white. Robb mentioned that there was also a black cat that had disappeared. He told Campbell that the black cat was his
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-7.gif" ALT="734"></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-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep08/03-10722-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10722-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep08/03-10455-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep08/03-10505-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10455-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10505-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-10722-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-10505-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-10455-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-7.gif" ALT="732"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1456.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Powers</SPAN> was on brief for appellees Michael D. LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellees Transamerica Corporation. Twenty three owners of real property in Rhode Island were disadvantaged by being part of a group required to pay their real estate taxes annually rather than quarterly. Were required to pay taxes in one lump sum. The quarterly payment method is more favorable to the taxpayer because it permits the taxpayer to receive the interest on the escrowed funds until the quarter in which payment is due.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUwOTktY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5099-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the award is based on facts that were neither proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury nor admitted by him in his plea allocution. Boccagna argues that HUD was. Not 2 entitled to any restitution because its claimed out of pocket losses were more than offset by the fair market value of the foreclosed collateral that it acquired upon payment of the defaulted loans. Fair market value will generally provide the best measure to ensure restitution in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As follows: On page 3 the list of amici curiae is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4940C2B517AA1E7E88256CD8005C1E00/$file/0115219o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. Active judges failed to vote in favor of rehearing en banc.** The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. Political structure equal protection analysis concerns a restructuring of the **Judge Reinhardt was recused. 2462 VALERIA v. This case should have been reheard en banc. Is designed for that purpose.
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5057.html">RONALD F. BERKLEY ET AL 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="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/02a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bollinger Page 3 appeal the district court's determination that the Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 The Law School contends that its interest in achieving a diverse student body is compelling under Regents of the University of California v. That its admissions policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Law School is joined by the Intervenors: forty one individuals and three student groups. The policy states that the Law School's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></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="694"></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="694"></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="694"></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="693"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/021777P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This suit was intended to address grievances arising out of the implementation of revitalization plans for the Darst Webbe and Clinton Peabody public housing complexes in St. This was a very complicated case that involved a total of nineteen counts. All of which were maintained throughout the proceedings in the district court. The appellees have not appealed the district court's decision on these two counts. The appellants have appealed the district court's decision on eight of those counts. Darst Webbe Tenant Association Board and Peabody Tenant Association are housing associations. Inc. is a Missouri non profit corporation that engages in activities designed to help the homeless and encourage affordable housing. We will not determine which appellant would be entitled to any relief that the district court could order on remand. We leave that determination to the district court if it determines that the appellants have prevailed on any of the remaining six counts. Is a Missouri non profit corporation. Or other governmental entity or public body (or agency or instrumentality thereof) which is authorized to engage in or assist in the development or operation of low income housing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/97-1158.htm">97-1158 -- BRANSON SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-82 V. ROMER -- 11/20/1998<BR></A><BR>
That first state constitution responded to the federal government's grant of lands for common schools by establishing a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1002.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ORP is a Wisconsin corporation licensed by the State to operate community based residential programs. (WCA) is a non profit Wisconsin corporation which provides statewide advocacy and protection for the rights of persons with disabilities. Plaintiff intervenors Janet K. and Valerie D. are residents of Milwaukee County and each has suffered a traumatic brain injury.1 Because Janet K.'s injuries occurred prior to adulthood. Both Janet K. and Valerie D. have been determined to be incompetent. Both Janet K. and Valerie D. are under protective placement orders pursuant to the State of Wisconsin's civil commitment statute for long term placement. Those conditions are as follows: Special Conditions. 1. A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct96/95-4056.wpd.html">WILSON V. GLENWOOD INTERMOUNTAIN PROPS., INC.<BR></A><BR>
We conclude they do not have standing. All of the defendant landlords have been certified by BYU to provide BYU off campus housing to unmarried BYU students. (2) to segregate students from non students by buildings or wings of buildings if they are certified to rent to both students and non students. (3) to rent only to unmarried male or unmarried female students or to separate unmarried male students from unmarried female students by buildings or wings of buildings if the landlords are certified to rent to both male and female BYU students. Apartments in those buildings and wings are rented only to students. An unmarried man under 25 years old who was not a BYU student. Was denied apartments in off campus BYU approved student housing that was reserved for women. An unmarried woman under 25 years old who was not a BYU student. Was denied apartments in off campus BYU approved student housing that was reserved for men. They were not otherwise qualified for apartments reserved for students. The court also ruled that in any case defendants' practices were permitted under Title IX.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211090.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A jury determined that there was no discriminatory intent involved in the denial of appellants' application for a deck and wheelchair ramp to be constructed on the front of their home. Which also is challenged for sufficiency of the evidence. Florida.2 1 Loren is co owner of the subject home with her sister. 000. 2 Because it is a coastal community. All of the houses in Hernando Beach South are built on stilts or. Who is severely mentally retarded. Loren was given a copy of the deed restrictions for Hernando Beach South. Location and approximate costs of same have been submitted and approved in writing . . . . She sustained further injuries in an automobile accident in 1987. 4 Janke is the legal ward of Veronica Aguirre. The purposes for requesting the fence were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2002/02-11090.opn.html">LOREN V. SASSER (10/17/2002, NO. 02-11090)<BR></A><BR>
A jury determined that there was no discriminatory intent involved in the denial of appellants' application for a deck and wheelchair ramp to be constructed on the front of their home. Which also is challenged for sufficiency of the evidence. Who is severely mentally retarded. Loren was given a copy of the deed restrictions for Hernando Beach South. Location and approximate costs of same have been submitted and </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2002/02-11090.opn.html">LOREN V. SASSER (10/17/2002, NO. 02-11090)<BR></A><BR>
A jury determined that there was no discriminatory intent involved in the denial of appellants' application for a deck and wheelchair ramp to be constructed on the front of their home. Which also is challenged for sufficiency of the evidence. Who is severely mentally retarded. Loren was given a copy of the deed restrictions for Hernando Beach South. Location and approximate costs of same have been submitted and </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021573.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We describe the facts less expansively as the issues before us are narrower. Williams and Reaves are black men who served as police officers employed by the Fayetteville. It appears that there have been racial problems within the Fayetteville police department for in 1974 Fayetteville settled a discrimination action brought against it by agreeing to increase the opportunities of black officers for better trainPlaintiffs also made other section 1983 claims as well as claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. State law that are not before us on this appeal. 1 4 WILLIAMS v. The parties to that litigation memorialized their settlement in a consent decree that still was in effect at the time of the events leading directly to this action. Was terminated in 1997. Was to interview any black officer who had perceived discrimination so that the complaints could be investigated. Williams and Reaves charge that the subsequent investigation of the reports of discrimination was nothing more than an effort to discredit the officers who had complained of discrimination and an attempt to determine the membership in a group of black officers called Officers for Equity that opposed racial discrimination in the police department.2 Hansen.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1763.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee U.S. Were on brief for appellee Corcoran Management Co. 42 U.S.C. 1437 et 1 The facts underlying this case are detailed at Paris v. This amendment (which is necessary in light of the decision in Paris v. Section 6(c)(4)(A) of the United States Housing Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(c)(4)(A)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following:
</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/200314400.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In which Ochoa is a criminal defendant. Sitting by designation. 2 is an intervenor. I. BACKGROUND In the 1980s Ochoa was a high ranking member of the Medellín drug cartel based out of Medellín. Was released in 1997. He was extradited to this country in 2001. Ochoa was cash poor and land rich. Ochoa sought to admit evidence at trial about an illegal scheme called the
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1966_040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wisconsin Community Services was formerly Wisconsin Correctional Foundation. The name was changed while this action was pending in the district court. 1 2 No. 04 1966 Disabilities Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1997/97a1529p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal by certain trustees of the Barnes Foundation. Who are also African American citizens. Is removable to federal district court pursuant to the civil rights removal statute. That they were discriminated against by the Commissioners on racial grounds. We conclude that they have failed to satisfy the narrow and well defined requirements for § 1443(1) removal as explicated in State of Georgia v. We will therefore affirm the order of the district court remanding the removed action to the state court from whence it came. I. Facts & Procedural History The Barnes Foundation is a non profit Pennsylvania corporation located on Latches Lane. Its history is well known. Four of the five Foundation Trustees are to be nominated by Lincoln University. Charles Frank (defendants in the state defamation action) were trustees. Frank are African American and appellants here. The gravamen of the Foundation's federal civil rights action is that this adverse treatment was motivated by racial prejudice engendered by the fact that (1) the majority of the Foundation's Trustees are African American.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BA73E4E997B9FA5688256DA20059339D/$file/0017508.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He is disabled and can no longer work. Once he was no longer earning a salary. The question in this case is whether the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA). He was earning approximately $36. Was less expensive than the $1. The Branham unit was closer to his mother's home. He was receiving $837 from SSDI per month. Duffus stated that Branham required prospective tenants to have a minimum gross monthly income equaling three times the monthly rent. The minimum required income was $2. After he was informed of his ineligibility. The home was located less than a mile from Branham. Anne Giebeler's income was $3. Stating that Giebeler was disabled and that. The district court held that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/01-1072a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Honig were on brief. Were on brief. Gottfried was on brief. Appended to the petition to deny were declarations by one former part time employee. By two other former employees and two unsuccessful job applicants who claimed to have been subjected to discriminatory treatment.1 In the petition. The University responded that it did not believe disclosure of Sullivan's complaint was required because her discrimination suit resulted in a verdict in the University's favor. In May 1997 the FCC sent the University a letter asking the University to explain why it had failed to disclose the Sullivan Also appended was the declaration of Sullivan's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/021394p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the government violated the Equal Protection Clause when it peremptorily struck two African American. The District Court held that race was not a factor in the strikes and that the government's religion related reasons for the strikes were permissible. Because we are satisfied that the government's peremptory strikes in this case were based on the jurors' heightened religious involvement rather than a specific religious affiliation. Because they were not racially motivated. We will affirm. Jerry DeJesus was stopped. DeJesus was charged with the illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). DeJesus' first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. DeJesus was sentenced to a prison term of 110 months. We will set forth only the facts that relate to these two issues. A. Jury Selection Jury selection for DeJesus' retrial was conducted in three phases. The prospective jurors were asked to complete a questionnaire.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117176.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were convicted and sentenced for The Honorable James L. Hernandez was also convicted of conspiracy to commit murder by supporting and implementing a plan to shoot down United States civilian aircraft outside of Cuban and United States airspace. That the pervasive community prejudice against Fidel Castro and the Cuban government and its agents and the publicity surrounding the trial and other community events combined to create a situation where they were unable to obtain a fair and impartial trial.1 We agree. Medina contend that the evidence was insufficient on the counts relating to violations of the Foreign Services Registration Act. Our review of the evidence at trial is more extensive than is typical for consideration of an appeal involving the denial of a motion for change of venue. This is so because the trial evidence itself created safety concerns for the jury which implicate venue considerations. Medina were arrested on a criminal complaint on 12 September 1998. Were subsequently indicted with nine codefendants for conspiring to act as agents of the Republic of Cuba without registering with the Attorney General of the United States and to defraud the United States.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5069.html">NATIONAL LEASED HOUSING V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/941600P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Oxford House C and Oxford House W are self supporting. Oxford House C and Oxford House W are located in St. After city inspections revealed that more than eight recovering men were living at each Oxford House. The City's limits on the number of unrelated people who can live together in a single family residential zone are exempt from the Act's requirements. Not ordinances like the City's that are designed to promote the family character of a neighborhood. The City does not contest the district court's conclusion that the Oxford House residents are handicapped within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act because they are recovering addicts. The issue is whether the City has unlawfully discriminated against. Allows group homes to have up to eight handicapped residents. The district 4 court nevertheless found the City's zoning ordinances are discriminatory because the eight person limit would destroy the financial viability of many Oxford Houses. We conclude the eight person rule is rational. Cities have a legitimate interest in decreasing congestion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E26A6EB9E32D86D788256E240077D3B8/$file/0315656.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Must have an interest in actually purchasing or renting a particular property or dwelling in order to allege a discriminatory violation. We also face a related question: whether Plaintiff Appellant Disabled Rights Action Committee (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2415.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117176op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The five defendants were arrested. Were The defendants raised the following additional issues on appeal: prosecutorial misconduct regarding the testimony of a government witness and during closing argument. Guerrero were also charged with conspiring to deliver to Cuba
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1352p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse the August 16. Hovsons is a developer of nursing homes and other forms of senior citizen housing. Approximately twenty two (21.96) of the acres are located in Brick Township. The remaining (10.77) acres are in Lakewood Township. The nursing home facility Hovsons has envisioned is intended for persons who will require some form of nursing care for the rest of their lives.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5D144B6DA751560988256DAD005B46FE/$file/0157036.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The freedom from administrative segregation that was affected by the denial of due process. We must determine whether the district court improperly granted summary judgment on Serrano's equal protection claim in light of evidence presented as to whether a prison officer's decision to deny the requested witness testimony during his disciplinary hearing was racially motivated. Francis is entitled to qualified immunity as to the due process claim.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></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-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/97-1116a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Schaerr were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Honig was on the brief for intervenors Missouri State Conference of Branches of the NAACP. Was on the brief for the United States as amicus curiae. Rosman was on the brief for amici curiae Center for Individual Rights and National Religious Broad casters. May were on the brief for amicus curiae American Center for Law and Justice. Both stations are housed on the campus of the Church's Concordia Semi nary and.
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1116a.html">LUTHERAN CHCH MO V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
Schaerr</i> were on the briefs.<p> <p> <p> <i>Daniel M. Were on the brief. <i><p> Robert B. Honig</i> was on the brief for intervenors Missouri <p> State Conference of Branches of the NAACP. Was on the brief for the United States as <i><p> amicus curiae.</i><p> <p> <i>Michael E. Rosman</i> was on the brief for <i>amici curiae</i> <p> Center for Individual Rights and National Religious Broad <p> casters. <i>Michael P. May </i><p> were on the brief for <i>amicus curiae</i> American Center for <p> Law and Justice.<p> <p> Before: Silberman. Both stations <p> <p> <p> are housed on the campus of the Church's Concordia Semi <p> nary and.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2205.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 9. Replace
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B2F27EFF2D8F1A2988256EB5004E2AED/$file/0215762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The face of American poverty is changing dramatically. Minimum wage workers are unable to support their families' basic needs. At A1 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/991931.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant tobacco companies have targeted the marketing of mentholated tobacco products at African Americans.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6110E37D1BB6235888256F0A005794A0/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended to replace all of the text in sub section
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/031231u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 alleging the Township's enactment of an animal control ordinance violates their constitutional and statutory civil rights because it was motivated by racial animus. I. Facts Shain Koorn (who is African American) and Rafaela Koorn (who is Hispanic) purchased a home and property in the Township of Lacey. They were soon informed by the local code enforcement officer of a Township ordinance limiting property owners to six dogs. Both the Koorns and the Township discovered that what the code enforcement officer had believed was an official ordinance was in fact an informal policy. The defendants will be collectively referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1930.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brenner</U> and <U>Nixon Peabody LLP</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/96-7239b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With him on the brief was Arthur B. Farris was on the brief for amicus curiae Home School Legal Defense Association. Holding that it violates the fundamental rights of minors and their parents and is unconstitutionally vague. Rehearing en banc was granted. Determining that juvenile crime and victimization in the District was a serious prob lem and growing worse unanimously adopted the Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995. The curfew contains eight
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/04/011948P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Omni is a non profit corporation that provides foster care services to wards of the State of Nebraska. If it is determined that the Contractor's practices are harmful to the child/family. Detective Miller is a police officer with the Bellevue Police Department and for the past several years has specialized in investigating child abuse cases. Charges against three of the staff members were ultimately dismissed and the fourth staff member was acquitted. The Woodlawn staff members allege that they were harassed by Miller because of their race. The NDHHS provided Omni with thirty days advance written notice that it was cancelling its contract with Woodlawn. Omni argues that Miller's investigation and arrests were discriminatory. De novo review is also applicable where summary judgment is granted on the basis of qualified immunity. Summary judgment is properly granted when. Shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party moving for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD82194097E1066888256C3000546E6D/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where Williams was staying. They went to a 7 Eleven where Owens was sweeping the parking lot. Saying:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2708.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The City had informed both HUD and Shaikh that it was considering condemning the property. Or citizenship) more favorably than he was treated nor that the City's stated reason for persuading Shaikh to cancel his contract (the Kennedy King college expansion) was either illegitimate or pretextual. The possibility that the City would seek to take the Lowe apartments by eminent domain is a risk every private property owner bears. It is a risk balanced by 1 Shaikh's original complaint advanced four additional counts under the Fair Housing Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq. (2003). Those claims were previously dismissed by the district court in a ruling that is not challenged here. 4 No. 02 2708 constitutional requirements to take the property only for the public use and then to compensate the owner for the property's fair market value. It was too late: HUD had decided to proceed to auction. The City was powerless to stop the auction sale. Was unconstitutional and unlawful conduct if motivated by discriminatory animus.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1411p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge The Allegheny County Patriot Party (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA26FF01BBAA634988256EAF00541330/$file/0256566.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
SAN BUENAVENTURA 7735 that its federal claims were not ripe. (4) erred in not considering its argument that the city ordinance is preempted by state law. Approved increases were limited to seven percent of the base rent the first year an increase was requested or. Because no provision was made for rent increases in the event a mobile home was sold or transferred. The Ordinance was amended to provide for limited vacancy
</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/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-3021a.html">USA V. DEAN DEBORAH GORE<BR></A><BR>
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/971825P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants) moved for summary judgment asserting that the ADA claim was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and that the section 1983 claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. I. BACKGROUND ACLEST is an agency of the State of Arkansas which regulates the hiring and certification of law enforcement officers within the State. At the time he was hired by the Maumelle Department. Alsbrook's supervisor certified that Alsbrook met the minimum standards for appointment as a law enforcement officer as prescribed in Section 1002.2 Alsbrook was accepted into the course and successfully completed it in December. He was then employed as a law enforcement officer with the Maumelle Department. Alsbrook was technically functioning as an uncertified law enforcement officer during this time period.3 It appears from the record that Alsbrook's supervisor thought that Dr. It is necessary for the employing agency to request certification by the filing of an Application for Award of Law Enforcement Officer Certificate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/00-1145.htm">00-1145 -- CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 02/10/2003<BR></A><BR>
Denver has amended the ordinance twice since this lawsuit was initiated but it remains essentially unchanged for purposes of this case. <p> In 1993. A bench trial was held and the district court entered judgment in favor of CWC on its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. <em>See Concrete Works of Colorado. CWC's entitlement to damages was reserved and the district court directed entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. <em>See</em> <em>id</em>. at 1044. Anecdotal evidence which are discussed respectively in subsections IV.A. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1257B4A0E455128D882571E600582243/$file/0215475.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The California Court of Appeal's findings are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before us en banc upon remand from the United States Supreme Court. Believing that it will be helpful in analyzing the issues presented. At issue were the so called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5050.html">CIENEGA GARDENS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Everett C. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>David M. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Carole W. Rental rates were held below market rates.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On exiting the programs. The trial court granted summary judgment solely on the basis of that decision.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This appeal is. We conclude a property right vested in the Owners that was temporarily taken.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We also conclude that there is no reason this taking is not. Compensable under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We further hold with respect to at least the subset of Owners for whom there is a well developed record before us. That they are entitled to ". Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[3]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This appeal is one in a series of proceedings.
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054353p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
New Directions and the individual plaintiffs' appeal is before us. Properly prescribed methadone is not intoxicating or sedating. The medication is taken orally and it suppresses narcotic withdrawal for 24 to 36 hours. Patients are able to perceive pain and have emotional reactions. Craving is a major reason for relapse. It has been found that normal street doses of heroin are ineffective at producing euphoria. Methadone is medically safe even when used continuously for 10 years or more. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (of the Executive Office of the President) provides further information on methadone treatment: Background Information Methadone is a rigorously well tested medication that is safe and efficacious for the treatment of narcotic withdrawal and dependence. Is freed from the uncontrolled. Withdrawal from methadone is much slower than that from heroin. It is possible to maintain an addict on methadone without harsh side effects. The operating practices of clinics and hospitals are bound by Federal regulations that restrict the use and availability of methadone.
</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=94-1950.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Cover sheet. Powers were on brief for appellant. Sharton and Segal & Feinberg were on brief for appellee. Clarke was sexually harassed. Was barred for failure to exhaust mandatory administrative remedies before the Massachu setts Commission Against Discrimination (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0447p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Soccer City is a for profit corporation engaged in the The Honorable William H. While we find that Plaintiff did in fact have standing. Factual History The facts in this case are largely undisputed. The first site Soccer City tested was found to be unsuitable for construction. So a second site was tested. After determining that the second site was suitable. The Board required any interested parties to submit their bids within the following three weeks in order to have them considered. The Board further required a guarantee from any new bidders that whomever was awarded the contract would reimburse Soccer City for the environmental testing it had conducted. Plaintiff was unable. The day the bids were due. Which was the one from Soccer City. Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine No. 05 2360 Club Italia Soccer v. Page 3 issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The basis for constitutional standing is derived from Article III's
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/datefile/datefile.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
End page heading. > <div align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06A0476P-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The proposal was scheduled to go into effect on December 23. At stake today is whether the federal courts should permit this state initiative to go into effect or whether we should preliminarily enjoin it in part in the part. That is. Uncertainty about the law's impact on current admissions policies and uncertainty about changing admissions policies in the middle of the current enrollment season we are unable to identify any tenable basis under federal law for suspending the law's enforcement. We have no choice but to permit its enforcement in accordance with the state law framework that gave it birth. I. Legal and policy debates about admissions preferences in the university setting are not new to the people of Michigan. The executive director of which is Jennifer Gratz. Fourth:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0476p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The proposal was scheduled to go into effect on December 23. At stake today is whether the federal courts should permit this state initiative to go into effect or whether we should preliminarily enjoin it in part in the part. That is. Uncertainty about the law's impact on current admissions policies and uncertainty about changing admissions policies in the middle of the current enrollment season we are unable to identify any tenable basis under federal law for suspending the law's enforcement. We have no choice but to permit its enforcement in accordance with the state law framework that gave it birth. I. Legal and policy debates about admissions preferences in the university setting are not new to the people of Michigan. The executive director of which is Jennifer Gratz. Fourth:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BD6E45E04A4C20A88256F3B00686CD1/$file/0235668.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
See Portland City Code 29.20.010 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A83BC2AA9FFB8215882571CA007FEF45/$file/0416705.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue here is whether the district court properly disPlaintiffs raised additional issues. Which we have addressed in a separate memorandum disposition. Filed this date. 2 Plaintiffs could have. The purpose of the statute is. Title II requires state and local governments to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to public services. At the time that the ADA was passed. Three are relevant here. Id. § 12940(a). [2] The DPA and the Unruh Act both focus on ensuring that persons with disabilities have equal access to public businesses. COUNTY OF BUTTE Individuals with disabilities or medical conditions have the same right as the general public to the full and free use of the streets. Other places to which the general public is invited. COUNTY OF BUTTE 9703 The Unruh Act provides in pertinent part: All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal. Or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations. Code § 51(b). [3] The California courts have. Holding that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F3398DF0F5B7CAC288256D5E00785FB2/$file/0136172.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Save Our Valley argues that the project will have the effect of discriminating against Rainier Valley residents based on race in violation of a Department of Transportation regulation. The primary question before us is whether that Department of Transportation regulation creates an individual federal right that can be enforced under the Civil Rights Act. I The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/983789P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Rehabilitation Services for the Blind (RSB) is a Missouri state agency which receives federal funding and which developed a policy prohibiting its employees from distributing literature or discussing services offered by consumer groups such as the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and its local affiliate. I. RSB is a vocational rehabilitation agency serving blind Missourians. It is administered by the Missouri Division of Family Services and receives funding under the Rehabilitation Act. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 Denise Cross is the Director of the Division of Family Services of the State of Missouri and in this capacity supervises the RSB. Howard is the Deputy Director and Supervisor of RSB and is responsible for managing the agency's seven district offices throughout Missouri. NFB and NFB Mo are not for profit membership organizations which aim to promote integration of the blind into society on equal terms with the sighted. Their aggressive advocacy and support programs are built on the philosophy that blindness is a characteristic.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2257.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> EBEL. The district court sua sponte ordered that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E602EB5C9A0D3B288256D91005B3715/$file/0016691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion by Judge Fisher *Judge Tallman was drawn to replace Judge Henry Politz.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2F7EAB6A6DF348E88256EED006D5274/$file/0235232.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Potter is substituted for his predecessor. Willard Johnson are homeless persons in Seattle. They have found it difficult to receive mail. Although some homeless shelters will accept mail on behalf of residents. They will only hold mail for a limited time and mail theft in shelters is a recurring problem. 1994).1 No fee postal boxes are available to customers who are ineligible for carrier delivery service. The regulation has since been changed to require an applicant to have a verifiable point of contact even if he or she provides proper identification or is known to the postmaster or box clerk. 2001). 2 The regulation has since been changed to require the customer seeking a no fee box to have a physical address. No fee boxes are unavailable in large cities such as Seattle because the Postal Service delivers mail to all physical addresses in the area. All general delivery mail is sent to one designated facility in Seattle. The mail is held for pickup at a designated post office for thirty days. General delivery service is intended primarily to serve as a temporary means of delivery.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></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="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-1162.htm">03-1162 -- SOSKIN V. REINERTSON -- 01/12/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3309.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Day and the other Plaintiffs contend that Kansas Statutes 76 731a unlawfully discriminates against U.S. citizens who are not Kansas residents in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is preempted by 8 U.S.C. 1623. Provided that certain nonresidents were deemed residents for tuition purposes.(1) Pursuant to its terms. At least six Kansas students who were undocumented. Who similarly were not legal residents of Kansas and did not qualify for resident tuition under 76 731a or any other Kansas statute. That it is preempted by Congress's occupation of the immigration field. In relevant part: (a) Any individual who is enrolled or has been accepted for admission at a postsecondary educational institution as a postsecondary student shall be deemed to be a resident of Kansas for the purpose of tuition and fees for attendance at such postsecondary educational institution. (b) As used in this section: . . . (2) 'individual' means a person who (A) has attended an accredited Kansas high school for three or more years.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/98-2936.man.html">SNAPP V. UNLIMITED CONCEPTS, INC. (4/5/2000, NO. 98-2936)<BR></A><BR>
Was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2021.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court denied all of plaintiffs' claims save one: an award of nominal damages of $1.00 each to the two students who would have been assigned to the school of their choice under the old system but for their race. While high school assignments are made on a citywide basis. Boston is divided into three Attendance Zones the North. These zones were drawn by the district court as part of its desegregation orders. The lines largely hew to major transportation routes to keep traditional neighborhoods intact as much as possible.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/98-2936.man.html">SNAPP V. UNLIMITED CONCEPTS, INC. (4/5/2000, NO. 98-2936)<BR></A><BR>
Was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAEC0F3D7F6C5B7488256F6B007897F0/$file/0215475.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WL (9th Cir. 2004) (unpublished disposition). **This appeal was withdrawn from submission pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miller El v. This Opinion was circulated to the panel on October 23. 1 we hold the state court's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986600.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-6600.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-6600.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986600.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1039.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. was on brief for Self Help. All of whom were JHA Commissioners. Was voluntarily dismissed by Andrade on the first day of trial. 3 3 recommendation. Which is funded by the Department of Labor through the National Council of Senior Citizens (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042440np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
319 U.S. 315 (1943).1 The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed. The land is surrounded by single family subdivisions and is abutted by two unlimited access roads. 1343 and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 1 and Franklin. Both of which are classified as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D275403CD037CBBB88256C2900726A67/$file/0055532.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will refer to the student plaintiffs individually. Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to damages under California Civil Code § 52 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0402n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a diversity contract case under Kentucky law. I. The Parkside companies are affiliated entities in the business of developing low income housing. Since the Project was for lowincome housing. Parkside was eligible to receive low income housing tax credits as a federal subsidy from the Kentucky Housing Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1045.htm">99-1045 -- THOMPSON V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 08/07/2001<BR></A><BR>
Colorado argued that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Because Colorado is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The special license plates are supplied to the disabled at the same cost as standard license plates. <em>See id.</em>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1045a.htm">99-1045A -- THOMPSON V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 08/07/2001<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F91B4230881B4C68825731A00823BCA/$file/0416963.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Developmentally disabled Medicaid beneficiaries (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-5163a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. With him on the brief were Brian P. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of an award of attorney's fees for actions brought under the Freedom of Information Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30F069FE0BC1EB8C882572DB0056BB91/$file/0456039.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending that it is unconscio 5606 DAVIS v. The merits of the underlying claims in her complaint are not at issue here. Because the arbitration agreement is unconscionable under California law. A cover memorandum stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-8884.opa.html">ASKEW V. CITY OF ROME<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Askew v. Senior District Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the thorough Order (opinion) entered on June 25. Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant City of Rome's methods of electing its City Commission and Board of Education are intentionally discriminatory against Rome's African American community and have the effect of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2024B9863BDEA09288256DCE00764415/$file/0157013.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that Liu failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Amway's reasons for Defendant Amway is now named Alticor. AMWAY CORPORATION 15593 terminating her were pretextual and. The district court held that Amway had not interfered with Liu's FMLA/CFRA leave because Liu was on leave when she was terminated. Xin Liu was the first scientist hired in the Concentrate Development Department of the Nutrilite Division of Amway Corporation (
</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.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-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/001948P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The HOPE VI plan generally calls for demolition of more than 1200 public housing dwelling units (less than half of which are occupied) and construction of more than 650 new mixed income apartments and homes. Demolition of both the Webbe Elderly and Paul Simon buildings (which have units reserved for the elderly and nonelderly disabled) and their replacement with a new senior development. The plaintiffs also assert the SLHA is implementing the HOPE VI plan in a way that violates the requirements of the plan and the United States Housing Act. Their challenge is not ripe for adjudication. Creason's claims are moot. Because we conclude the plaintiffs' claims are not ripe. The harm asserted must have matured enough to warrant judicial intervention. The district court held any threatened injury in this case is simply not imminent. The court would have to be presented with facts that more specifically show the likelihood of injury. The district court stated the plaintiffs had not come forward with evidence showing any disabled individuals have been relocated to an inaccessible housing unit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C2B3C7358ADFF37588256D02006FDC34/$file/0215128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: Plaintiffs are former students in the Morgan Hill Unified School District who have sued the school district. They contend that they are entitled to immunity from suit because the plaintiffs have not shown that the defendants acted with the improper motive required to establish a constitutional violation. The law was not clearly established that the students were entitled. We also hold that the law was clearly established and that the evidence would support a finding that the administrators' actions were unreasonable. All of the plaintiffs were. Or were perceived by other students to be. The following is a sampling of incidents that the plaintiffs have described in affidavits or depositions. Similar messages were scrawled on the outside of her locker. This is disgusting.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1880.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lamond with whom McDonald & Associates was on brief for appellants. Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law of the Boston Bar Association were on brief for intervenor. With whom Boston Police Department Legal Advisor's office was on brief for City of Boston. Was on brief for appellee. This is an appeal from the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Defendants City of Boston. The BPD believed that promoting Ruiz was necessary to avoid violating an amended 1980 federal court consent decree. That the promotion was narrowly tailored to meet that goal. Officers who pass the exam are placed on an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013301.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The primary issues presented in this appeal from the District Court's order denying preliminary injunctive relief are whether the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment allow the Borough of Tenafly. Because there is no evidence that the acts in question are expressive. Because the other requirements for injunctive relief are satisfied. In practice they have often done so. House number signs nailed to utility poles in plain view are 1. Our description of the facts is based on our independent review of the record because. Local churches are tacitly allowed to post permanent directional signs bearing crosses on municipal property. Orange ribbons were affixed to utility poles
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992122.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The purpose of the RuralAgricultural District
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/009004.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the District Court's orders as to all claims regarding the guilt phase of Marshall's trial. We will remand for further evidentiary development as to his claim that his attorney was ineffective in the penalty phase. Was convicted and sentenced to death in 1986 for having hired someone to murder his wife. Maria and her husband both were examined by a physician to qualify for an additional insurance policy. Marshall was hit on the head and Maria was fatally shot. We will reprise the facts at some length as they provide a necessary background for understanding much of our analysis. Marshall mentioned that he was seeking an out of town investigator to track missing casino winnings that he had given to his wife. Since Toms River was a small community where news traveled quickly. Marshall's only contact with McKinnon was through telephoning Cumber both at home and at the hardware store. McKinnon had a person whose name really was Jimmy Davis sign for the money each time. The numerous telephone conversations were.
</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/March2003/021441.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was found by a state court to be a common nuisance and was closed down by the state court for a year. Holding that the plaintiffs' federal claims were inextricably intertwined with the state court decision. We also conclude that we cannot determine from the face of the complaint whether the plaintiffs' procedural due 3 process claim is inextricably intertwined with the state court decision. We therefore vacate the order dismissing that claim and remand for the plaintiffs to set out the claim with sufficient detail to enable the District Court to determine whether it is inextricably intertwined with the state court decision. We will summarize the facts alleged in the complaint. We express no view on whether they are well founded. Inc. are all corporations organized under the laws of Pennsylvania. Francis and Martin Desiderio are officers. The customers patronizing Desi's were predominantly white. The residents of Wilkes Barre are predominantly white. Were in fact motivated by a desire to drive AfricanAmericans and Latinos out of Wilkes Barre.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/96-6213.ma2.html">ONISHEA V. HOPPER (4/7/1999, NO. 96-6213)<BR></A><BR>
All of whom are prison inmates who have tested positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Have sued officials of the Alabama Department of Corrections under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/96-6213.ma2.html">ONISHEA V. HOPPER (4/7/1999, NO. 96-6213)<BR></A><BR>
All of whom are prison inmates who have tested positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Have sued officials of the Alabama Department of Corrections under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act<A HREF=
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1053.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant Superior Court of Puerto Rico for the District of Arecibo. Bonnet Rosario was on brief for appellants Rivera Santos. William Ramirez Hernandez with whom Nora Vargas Acosta was on brief for plaintiffs. Jeanne Finberg and National Senior Citizens Law Center were on brief for intervenors appellees. The Superior Court judgment was based on a determination that Casa Marie was operating in violation of local zoning ordinances and JDA restrictive covenants. A. The Opening and Expansion of Casa Marie The Jardines de Arecibo housing development was established in 1967. Each property in the development is subject to restrictive 3 covenants allowing only detached single family residences. Was established by Maria Pla Placencio on a dead end street in a section of JDA zoned residential (R 3). Elder care facilities are not allowed except as a variance. Casa Marie was granted a six month provisional DSS license to operate an elder care facility on Lots 19 and 20. Casa Marie was denied a permanent DSS license due in part to the discovery that the A.R.P.E. 1As these endorsements were not seriously at issue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0415p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous and. The litigation is now over 20 years old and its course has been chronicled in numerous opinions from both the district court and this court. The district court will then make particularized findings of fact and conclusions of law determining whether the male and female inmates are presently being provided sufficiently Id. at 84 85. The Court formulated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/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-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/012224.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lawrence to operate a facility that would have an adverse disparate racial impact upon them in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We hold that an administrative regulation cannot create an interest enforceable under section 1983 unless the interest already is implicit in the statute authorizing the regulation. The plaintiffs do not have a right enforceable through a 1983 action under the EPA's disparate impact discrimination regulations. We will reverse. We point out that the residents of Waterfront South are predominately minorities and the neighborhood is disadvantaged environmentally.1 Waterfront South contains two Superfund sites. Lawrence's business is the processing of ground granulated blast furnace slag (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/05/973107P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Golman Dillon was terminated by the Yankton Sioux Housing Authority (Authority). Claiming that he was fired because he is white. He was responsible for. Dillon claims that he was terminated because he is white and brought suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981. Was properly granted due to sovereign immunity. Claim or obligation arising out of its activities under this ordinance and hereby authorizes the Authority to agree by contract to waive any immunity from suit which it might otherwise have. Dillon contends that the Authority was a corporation created by the Tribe and should be subject to suit like any other corporate entity created by the United States. 5 summary judgment is appropriate only where there is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/11/981623P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude the record presents no genuine issue of material fact and Greystone is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The United States Supreme Court has held the sole requirement for an organization such as ACORN to have standing to sue in its own right under the FHA is injury in fact.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-8207.man.html">GEORGIA MANUFACTURED HOUS. ASS'N, INC. V. SPALDING COUNTY (8/6/1998, NO. 97-8207)<BR></A><BR>
The dormant Commerce Clause and that the 4:12 requirement is preempted by federal law. Two of which are relevant here.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-8207.man.html">GEORGIA MANUFACTURED HOUS. ASS'N, INC. V. SPALDING COUNTY (8/6/1998, NO. 97-8207)<BR></A><BR>
The dormant Commerce Clause and that the 4:12 requirement is preempted by federal law. Two of which are relevant here.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3442_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Discrimination is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/96-7030b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the brief for amicus curiae Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We granted en banc review on the question whether the standard of evidence for punitive dam ages under Title VII is. We further hold that no evidence of such behavior was shown at trial in this case. Thus affirm the district court on the issue of punitive damages. * * * ADA is a Chicago based professional organization with an office in Washington. Both Kolstad and Spangler are lawyers. (There is no evidence that the job has not in fact included those elements.). In October 1992 Wheat approved a performance evaluation of Spangler in which Spangler stated that one of his objectives for 1993 was to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/983597.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Riga's conduct was not
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/021066P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They contend that their loan was not consummated on January 26. That because this notice was inaccurate. They are entitled to an extended three year period to rescind. They argue that the court should have instead borrowed the Minnesota six year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Are married and live in Coon Rapids. The Gaonas are both deaf. Their primary method of communicating is through American Sign Language. For an interpreter and that none was provided. The loan was funded and the money was disbursed on February 1. They claim that their mortgage loan was not
</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.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="468"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/97-1304.htm">97-1304 -- ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS INC. V. SLATER -- 09/25/2000<BR></A><BR>
We are just one race here. It is American.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2483.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ledbetter were on brief. Ltd. were on brief. Physical skills are a passport to college admissions and scholarships. Are invaluable in attaining career and life successes in and out of professional sports. The highway of opportunity runs in both directions. 1The individual defendants are. Each is sued in his official capacity. We discuss this appeal as if Brown was the sole defendant and appellant. Offering students the opportunity to partake of sports that are not financially self sustaining. Brown will never be confused with Notre Dame or the more muscular members of the Big Ten. Women are a relatively inconspicuous part of the storied athletic past. Respectively. 3 The absence of women's athletics at Brown was. Brown promptly upgraded Pembroke's rather primitive athletic offerings so that by 1977 there were fourteen women's varsity teams. Was in a financial bind. Many schools with varsity squads are reluctant to compete against club teams. 441 U.S. at 687 n.8 (holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to a Title IX suit).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/982724P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The defendants contend that the relevant statutes are constitutional because the Twenty first Amendment's broad grant of power to the states to regulate alcohol authorizes them. The purpose of that amendment was to create an exception to the Commerce Clause and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFB41C638909CB8F88256D5C0063E355/$file/9935684.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have received a response and conclude that MALABED v. I The North Slope Borough is a political subdivision of the State of Alaska. Where there is more than one Native American applicant who meets the minimum qualifications for a position. A Native American is a person belonging to an Indian tribe as defined in 25 U.S.C. North Slope Borough Code § 2.20.150(A)(27).1 Plaintiffs/Appellees are not Native Americans and claim that they were denied employment with the Borough because of the Ordinance. Robert Malabed is an Asian American of Filipino descent. The Ordinance was amended to create a preference not only for qualified Native Americans. Appellees Malabed and Emerson were denied employment under the original ordinance. Appellee Welch was denied employment under the amended ordinance. These differences between the amended ordinance and the original ordinance are not material to our analysis. 1 9102 MALABED v. NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH nent employment was rejected in 1998. He was replaced by a Native American.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/31F0472AE8A769E588257013007DAC1B/$file/0235971nographic.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking damages for the constitutional rights that were alleged to be violated by the emergency order. Four of the Appellants also filed individual claims in which they alleged that their constitutional rights were infringed by Seattle police officers in the course of the conference. We determine that the emergency order was a constitutional time. We also determine that there are genuine issues of material fact whether the emergency order was constitutional as applied to certain Appellants. Emily Maloney were also named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They are not parties to this appeal. 1 5952 MENOTTI v. CITY OF SEATTLE All persons who were arrested by the City of Seattle and its police agents or its affiliated police agents on December 1 and 2. Pursuant to the defendants'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3306.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> James Bolden is not happy with the City of Topeka. He alleged discrimination based on race (he is African American) and as retaliation for protected speech. On the ground that those claims were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-8028.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants are Lincoln County. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. <hr> I. Who were interested in creating a subdivision of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/51BFE3F68EDF896E88256B0300792F66/$file/9835154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
V. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider Appellants' First Amendment claim in light of Phillips. One of the most significant is loyalty to the client. Lawyers have long been required to place their clients' money in bank accounts separate from their own. Lawyers in all fifty states are held to that same high standard of professional conduct.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B181A3BD78A945088256E5A00707D47/$file/9835154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
V. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider Appellants' First Amendment claim in light of Phillips. One of the most significant is loyalty to the client. Lawyers have long been required to place their clients' money in bank accounts separate from their own. Lawyers in all fifty states are held to that same high standard of professional conduct.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc3OTIgdyBFcnJhdGFfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7792%20w%20Errata_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(4) correctly held that plaintiffs' statelaw claims were ripe for adjudication. We hold that the District Court's award of punitive damages was inconsistent with the Due Process Clause and with Illinois law. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal brought by individual and corporate defendants who. Defendants contend Plaintiffs have brought a motion to dismiss this appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. W e have d enied this mo tion. 1 2 that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over this case and the parties to it on multiple grounds. Assuming the case was not arbitrable. They claim that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial while an appeal was pending in this Court from the District Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. That the District Court abused its discretion by deciding unsettled questions of Illinois law after all the federal claims were dismissed. That the Illinois claims brought by plaintiffs were not ripe for adjudication. Arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to reinstate RICO claims that were previously dismissed at the behest of this Court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc3OTJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7792_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(4) correctly held that plaintiffs' statelaw claims were ripe for adjudication. We hold that the District Court's award of punitive damages was inconsistent with the Due Process Clause and with Illinois law. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal brought by individual and corporate defendants who. Defendants contend Plaintiffs have brought a motion to dismiss this appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Assuming the case was not arbitrable. They claim that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial while an appeal was pending in this Court from the District Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. That the District Court abused its discretion by deciding unsettled questions of Illinois law after all the federal claims were dismissed. That the Illinois claims brought by plaintiffs were not ripe for adjudication. Arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to reinstate RICO claims that were previously dismissed at the behest of this Court.
</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/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/99-13688.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ALLEN-BROWN (3/9/2001, NO. 99-13688)<BR></A><BR>
Does not apply in this case or that it was applied in an erroneous manner by the trial court. Who was black. Who was white. Ten were white. Uncalled in the venire were ten white and eight black prospective jurors. R58 at 53 57.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/65701F9CCDE2CA3F88256AB90050FE7B/$file/0055060.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Fair Housing Foundation of Long Beach's claims should have survived summary judgment. Alleging that the Park Apartments management company was engaged in racial discrimination and harassment. The FHF advised the City that the residents of the Park Apartments were going to file a lawsuit against the owners and managers of the complex and that a press conference was going to be held at the FHF's offices on the following day. About the alleged discrimination at the Park Apartments: This case illustrates why it is critical for apartment owners and managers to receive training in how to 12017 provide fair housing. It only took one ignorant and biased manager a few months to uproot and displace at least eight or nine such families and to send the message to yet another generation of young African Americans that they are still not welcome in middle class cities like Lakewood. The underlying action was resolved by a consent decree approved by then District Judge Wardlaw on April 2.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3BCC4AF232AB8B5F88256E5A00707C92/$file/0055060.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Fair Housing Foundation of Long Beach's claims should have survived summary judgment. Alleging that the Park Apartments management company was engaged in racial discrimination and harassment. The FHF advised the City that the residents of the Park Apartments were going to file a lawsuit against the owners and managers of the complex and that a press conference was going to be held at the FHF's offices on the following day. About the alleged discrimination at the Park Apartments: This case illustrates why it is critical for apartment owners and managers to receive training in how to 12017 provide fair housing. It only took one ignorant and biased manager a few months to uproot and displace at least eight or nine such families and to send the message to yet another generation of young African Americans that they are still not welcome in middle class cities like Lakewood. The underlying action was resolved by a consent decree approved by then District Judge Wardlaw on April 2.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9EF875B746412C0188256B0E00047B7A/$file/0055060.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judges Silverman and Paez have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED. Is hereby AMENDED as follows: 1. Footnote 4 on page 12030 of the slip opinion is deleted. 2. Are deleted and replaced with the following two new sentences:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1D53AD205FCE6B7188256E5A00707D5B/$file/0055060.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judges Silverman and Paez have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED. Is hereby AMENDED as follows: 1. Footnote 4 on page 12030 of the slip opinion is deleted. 2. Are deleted and replaced with the following two new sentences:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/99-13688.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ALLEN-BROWN (3/9/2001, NO. 99-13688)<BR></A><BR>
Does not apply in this case or that it was applied in an erroneous manner by the trial court. Who was black. Who was white. Ten were white. Uncalled in the venire were ten white and eight black prospective jurors. R58 at 53 57.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep02/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972609.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One of the prerequisites for obtaining a concealed handgun permit under the North Carolina Concealed Handgun Statute is completion of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E53F2E57F7A3CB9E88256EDD0052164F/$file/0230301.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: The final sentence of the second full paragraph on slip op. 2878 that reads.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8945F2F04A0292988256AA7005B8CAA/$file/0016181.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The threshold question is whether the Tribe is immune from suit. We conclude that it is not. We next address whether the Tribe is subject to the ADEA in these circumstances. We 10714 conclude that it is not. Resolution of this issue is a pure question of law that is currently ripe for review and. Is best resolved at the subpoena enforcement stage. The Tribe does not have its own reservation but instead occupies land held in trust by the United States. Is a governmental arm of the Tribe. Was particularly concerned with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/75ED5FF195B93D3F88256E5A00707C48/$file/0016181.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The threshold question is whether the Tribe is immune from suit. We conclude that it is not. We next address whether the Tribe is subject to the ADEA in these circumstances. We 10714 conclude that it is not. Resolution of this issue is a pure question of law that is currently ripe for review and. Is best resolved at the subpoena enforcement stage. The Tribe does not have its own reservation but instead occupies land held in trust by the United States. Is a governmental arm of the Tribe. Was particularly concerned with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034220p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are persons who borrowed from the two banks and signed second mortgages. Appellees in this case are the settling parties. Appellants are a number of law firms and plaintiff class members who challenge the District Court's jurisdiction. The alleged mastermind of the scheme was the Shumway Organization (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-8227.opa.html">ROZAR V. MULLIS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Rozar v. Denying an injunction and granting summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs' federal claims were time barred. Which had almost reached capacity and was becoming contaminated. Some of which were readily rejected because of insufficient useable acreage or the owner's unwillingness to sell. The record contains evidence that additional sites were added to the list as others were eliminated.<p> In January 1991 the County Board met to discuss a site at Scotland Road. The Board voted to table any action until alternatives were studied. Plaintiffs say that the site was not pursued because white residents protested. That most of the area residents were African American. Both an African American and a white church were nearby.<p> The list of potential landfill sites was expanded to include Old Macon Road. The record indicates that this site was brought to the County Board's attention when the property owner offered to sell a sizable tract (more than 400 acres).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-8227.opa.html">ROZAR V. MULLIS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Rozar v. Denying an injunction and granting summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs' federal claims were time barred. Which had almost reached capacity and was becoming contaminated. Some of which were readily rejected because of insufficient useable acreage or the owner's unwillingness to sell. The record contains evidence that additional sites were added to the list as others were eliminated.<p> In January 1991 the County Board met to discuss a site at Scotland Road. The Board voted to table any action until alternatives were studied. Plaintiffs say that the site was not pursued because white residents protested. That most of the area residents were African American. Both an African American and a white church were nearby.<p> The list of potential landfill sites was expanded to include Old Macon Road. The record indicates that this site was brought to the County Board's attention when the property owner offered to sell a sizable tract (more than 400 acres).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D70EA6D7D78F28D288256E2400774CC0/$file/0216820.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C3690C26EE778E288825721A007B5E85/$file/0316702.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. Attempted to address the conduct of only one of the 20 inmates who were responsible for 56 incidents of exhibitionist masturbation in the security housing unit. The jury heard the Inspector General's findings that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E0CEC479F939D56E88256BF40071A9B2/$file/0055583.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Background Kang is a United States citizen of Korean national origin. Tae Jin Yoon (Yoon) was Kang's supervisor. Lim de Mexico was organized under the laws of Mexico and existed for the sole purpose of assembling parts for televisions and computer monitors for sale to U. U. Lim America was U. Yoon was the VicePresident of U. Yoon also yelled at Cho and threw things at him. 2 There is some dispute as to whether Yoon fired Kang or Kang quit. Lim de Mexico's workers was of Korean descent. 9888 KANG v. He was Chief Executive Officer of both companies and President of U. U. Lim America argued it was not covered by Title VII because it employed fewer than fifteen people.4 We hold that Title VII applies because U. Lim de Mexico were an integrated enterprise which employed a combined total of more than fifteen employees. U. LIM AMERICA INC. 9889 [1] This circuit applies a four part test to determine whether two entities are an integrated enterprise for purposes of Title VII coverage. The four factors are:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052253p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case presents the Court with the issue of whether neighboring property owners who allege that their property values will be diminished and their neighborhood blighted by the construction of a storage facility have standing to sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The focus of this case is the propriety of the Darby Township Zoning Hearing Board's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A6F8AB79F2D252AA88256E5A00707C0C/$file/9956611.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although under general principles of tort law corporate shareholders and officers usually are not held vicariously liable for an employee's action. The criteria for the Fair Housing Act is different as liability is specified for those who direct or control or have the right to direct or control the conduct of another with respect to the sale of or provision of brokerage services to the sale of a dwelling. The decision of the district court is reversed. 9596 BACKGROUND Emma Mary Ellen Holley is African American. Is Caucasian and their son. Michael Holley is African American. Triad agent Terry Stump informed them that the asking price for the house was $145. That the offer would have to go through Triad. One of whom was later identified as Grove Crank. 000 was insufficient to get the builder to hold the house for six months. On the grounds that they were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. Plaintiffs have not appealed this ruling. The district court granted the motion to dismiss Meyer in his capacity as an officer of Triad stating that any liability of Meyer as an officer of Triad would attach to Triad in that Plaintiffs have not urged theories that would justify reaching Meyer individually.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/51AE32B1E73CC24088256A99007B3DDD/$file/9956611.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although under general principles of tort law corporate shareholders and officers usually are not held vicariously liable for an employee's action. The criteria for the Fair Housing Act is different as liability is specified for those who direct or control or have the right to direct or control the conduct of another with respect to the sale of or provision of brokerage services to the sale of a dwelling. The decision of the district court is reversed. 9596 BACKGROUND Emma Mary Ellen Holley is African American. Is Caucasian and their son. Michael Holley is African American. Triad agent Terry Stump informed them that the asking price for the house was $145. That the offer would have to go through Triad. One of whom was later identified as Grove Crank. 000 was insufficient to get the builder to hold the house for six months. On the grounds that they were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. Plaintiffs have not appealed this ruling. The district court granted the motion to dismiss Meyer in his capacity as an officer of Triad stating that any liability of Meyer as an officer of Triad would attach to Triad in that Plaintiffs have not urged theories that would justify reaching Meyer individually.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/02/981075P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After he was denied eligibility for public housing. I. The MPHA is a public entity that owns and manages almost 6600 units of publicly assisted housing in Minneapolis.
</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/may2000/99-10782.man.html">RUTSTEIN V. AVIS RENT-A-CAR SYS. (5/11/2000, NO. 99-10782)<BR></A><BR>
We now reverse.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The procedural history of this case is somewhat complicated by the fact that the original plaintiff. Was apparently not all that he claimed to be. A Yeshiva was understood to be someone with a
</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//may2000/99-10782.man.html">RUTSTEIN V. AVIS RENT-A-CAR SYS. (5/11/2000, NO. 99-10782)<BR></A><BR>
We now reverse.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The procedural history of this case is somewhat complicated by the fact that the original plaintiff. Was apparently not all that he claimed to be. A Yeshiva was understood to be someone with a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30486.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The basis of this suit is Pecan Acres's attempts to build low income housing on parcel of land that is partially in the City of Lake Charles and partially in the neighboring Calcasieu Parish. (2) it held there was no violation of Pecan Acres's due process rights when Pecan Acres was denied a hearing before one of its minor conditional use permits (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/668DD17E7A30625A88256D1A0079B868/$file/0156248.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In what the Sanghvis contend were unlawful acts of retaliation. Those claims were tried to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the City. They argue that the district court should have granted their motions for judgment as a matter of law or. No reasonable jury could have failed to find that the City unlawfully discriminated against. All further references are to Title 42 of the United States Code. 1 SANGHVI v. CITY OF CLAREMONT 5933 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will not reverse the district court's denial of that motion unless. We conclude there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7381D8D1C24EBB138825707C00768F41/$file/0316855.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI1MzEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2531-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even though that claim was not alleged formally on the EEOC form. We vacate the dismissal of Williams's sex discrimination claim against the NYCHA and of those retaliation claims 2 against the NYCHA that are not time barred. I. Background Gina Williams was employed by the NYCHA and was assigned as a heating plant technician to the South Jamaica House Development during the course of events that gave rise to this dispute. The only box that was checked indicating a basis of discrimination was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1043.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Was on brief for appellees. * Of the District of Massachusetts. We review whether the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs six inmates who are committed as sexually dangerous persons1 at the Treatment Center for sexually dangerous persons at the Massachusetts Correctional Institute in Bridgewater (the Treatment Center) were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-3087.htm">00-3087 -- HINSDALE V. ANDERSON -- 08/28/2001<BR></A><BR>
<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/alpha-idx.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eleventh Circuit
OPINION/ORDER
Five district court judges have presided over the case since its inception. Two different circuit courts of appeals have been asked to review one of their decisions.1 In this fifth appeal. We agree with the district court that the answer is
OPINION/ORDER
The district court denied the motion for class certification on the grounds that (1) the proposed class definition of
The Baldwin County Commission was composed of four persons elected at large. The case was one among many Dillard suits in the district courts which challenged the at large election systems used by dozens of cities. The court noted that only 15.34% of the County's population was black and the number was expected to decrease after the 1990 census.
The Baldwin County Commission was composed of four persons elected at large. The case was one among many Dillard suits in the district courts which challenged the at large election systems used by dozens of cities. The court noted that only 15.34% of the County's population was black and the number was expected to decrease after the 1990 census.
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Inc. (
OPINION/ORDER
Before us is an appeal by plaintiffs. The parents of several Philadelphia public school children were joined as plaintiffs by the following six organizations that devote substantial resources to overcoming what they allege are the disparate and inadequate educational programs caused by the challenged practices: (1) The Black Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity. Also joining as plaintiffs were several local officials and entities: (1) the School District of Philadelphia. These original plaintiffs were later joined without objection by intervenors the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Local 3 AFT AFL CIO. Our review of a district court's dismissal of a complaint is plenary. We apply the same test the district court should have used initially. We will not uphold a dismissal for failure to state a claim if.
OPINION/ORDER
Vaughn Sr. is president of Gears and his children are corporate officers. He is president of Winters and Maverick. Madeline is the Secretary/Treasurer at Winters. Their products are distinct Gears produces transmissions and Winters produces automotive rear ends and each company has its own equipment and production lines. Gears is managed by Randy Lau. The only area in which Gears and Winters cooperate considerably is in hiring. A Winters employee will place a
OPINION/ORDER
The housing units at issue were the Charleston Apartments. Forty seven of the fifty units were occupied. The Housing Authority was required to use the Charleston Apartments as public housing. The USDA characterized the payment as a
OPINION/ORDER
Public housing rental units in which rent was a percentage of the occupants' income. Low income tax credit units in which rent was a percentage of the area median income. The infrastructure improvements were designed to eliminate the
OPINION/ORDER
The victim alleges that these rapes were motivated by her assailants' discriminatory animus toward women and sues them pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Morrison immediately asked Brzonkala if she would have sexual intercourse with him.
OPINION/ORDER
Each plaintiff was disenfranchised. The cause of this disparate impact on their right to vote was external to the felon disenfranchisement provision itself and therefore could not provide the requisite causal link between the voting qualification and the prohibited discriminatory result. Is compelling.
OPINION/ORDER
Because TCP was not deprived of a property interest without due process of law. Because the County's actions were rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Leonard Jordan also informed the County Planner that TCP was applying to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (
OPINION/ORDER
Which determined that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. The defendants are: J. These claims are not before us on appeal. The only claims before us are federal claims against the defendants in their individual capacities. 2 2 1 * his discretionary authority3 is eligible for qualified immunity. If a constitutional right was violated under the plaintiff's version of the facts. We must then determine
OPINION/ORDER
The primary question in this appeal is whether petitioner. The facts we state are Williams's allegations. Was hiding in Cole's closet. As Brandon was sexually assaulting Williams. Cole was on the telephone with Steven Thomas. Cole told Thomas and Grant that they were
OPINION/ORDER
The pseudonyms were as follows: Victoria Smyth. Required that an applicant for welfare in Virginia either identify the father of any child for whom aid was requested or. The plaintiffs asserted that they were unable to identify the fathers of their children4 as required by the policy. The federal AFDC program was replaced. The program will be referred to hereinafter as TANF. 4 Smyth stated that she could not identify any of several men who might be the father of her child to Virginia DSS officials. Both men were proven not to be the father of her child by subsequent blood tests. RIVERO unless the Commissioner had substantial evidence the attestation was false. That the plaintiffs were thus likely to succeed on the merits.5 The preliminary injunction entered by the court prohibited the Commissioner from denying welfare benefits to the plaintiffs
Lewis. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are black American
citizens of Panamanian or Hispanic national origin who have
long worked for the Panama Canal Commission and its
predecessor. The PCC pays them sub
stantially less in salary and benefits than it pays other
American citizens working at the same jobs the overwhelm
ing majority of whom are white. We
reverse.
I
The Canal Commission is a wholly owned United States
government corporation. The thirteen plaintiffs were hired
by the PCC before 1979. All the plaintiffs are
currently United States citizens: eleven were naturalized
between 1987 and 1994. The remaining plaintiff is
the son of a United States citizen whose citizenship was not
registered with the U.S. Which generates the pay differential of which they
complain.
The first benefit is the so called
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Ernest Allen Cohen. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are black American citizens of Panamanian or Hispanic national origin who have long worked for the Panama Canal Commission and its predecessor. The PCC pays them sub stantially less in salary and benefits than it pays other American citizens working at the same jobs the overwhelm ing majority of whom are white. I The Canal Commission is a wholly owned United States government corporation. The thirteen plaintiffs were hired by the PCC before 1979. All the plaintiffs are currently United States citizens: eleven were naturalized between 1987 and 1994. The remaining plaintiff is the son of a United States citizen whose citizenship was not registered with the U.S. The first benefit is the so called
OPINION/ORDER
A house leased and used by CSG to provide caretaker services to three mentally retarded women residing there on the basis that the house was a
OPINION/ORDER
Group home environments are highly beneficial for certain developmentally disabled adults. No. 02 3536 3 Good Shepherd extend the water lines on their property to the northern boundary to provide service to a lot that was owned by a Jehovah's Witness Congregation. According to Good Shepherd the lines were to be extended only on the condition that the Congregation would pay for the expense of extending the lines. Good Shepherd and the Congregation were unable to reach an agreement about paying the costs. The lines were never extended to the northern border of Good Shepherd's property. Because there was no water service. Good Shepherd was unable to secure occupancy permits for the homes. These motions were denied. Good Shepherd was seeking liability for discrimination under the theory of discriminatory intent and impact and under a theory that the city failed to provide reasonable accommodations. The district court ruled 4 No. 02 3536 that the reasonable accommodation analysis was not applicable to the facts of the case and thus precluded Good Shepherd from presenting that theory at trial.
OPINION/ORDER
Who was governor. The trustee's first complaint was dismissed as to Morris and the Morris. Not to Senior Cottages itself because there was no allegation that Senior Cottages had a value in excess of creditors' claims against it. The complaint
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge This is a suit seeking declaratory 1 and injunctive relief compelling the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh to comply with regulations the Department of Housing and Urban Development promulgated pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Our task here is to determine whether appellants may properly maintain a suit to enforce the HUD regulations. There are certainly steps HUD itself can and should take to effect compliance. The District Court partially dismissed a p p e llants' com plaint because it determined that they did not have a private right of action to enforce the HUD regulations. We will affirm the denial of a right of action to enforce the regulations. I. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is commonly referred to as the
With him on the brief were Gerald T. Of counsel on the brief were Charles L. Also of counsel on the brief was James B. With him on the brief was Louis T. Of counsel on the brief was Joseph R. Of counsel on the brief were John G. Also of counsel on the brief were Rory J. With him on the brief were Kendrew H. Of counsel on the brief were Perry M. Also on the brief was Mark J. Of counsel on the brief were Frederick T. Also of counsel on the brief was J. Of counsel on the brief was James W. Circuit Judge.
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. The appellants were all convicted at trial and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. The drugs were then distributed by these persons and others to places in Puerto Rico and elsewhere in the United States.
Locally. Ayala supplied and controlled distribution sites (called
OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby withdrawn and the amended opinion is substituted in its place. The opinion is amended in Part IV. IT IS SO ORDERED. Darrell
OPINION/ORDER
The defendants claim (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that they retaliated against Moore. (2) that damages for emotional and mental distress are not recoverable under the applicable provision of the FLSA. (3) that the verdict was excessive. Because we conclude that the evidence of retaliation was sufficient to support the verdict and that damages for emotional and mental distress were properly recovered under the Act. This use of a mathematical formula constituted an abuse of discretion under existing Sixth Circuit precedent and will require a remand for correction. We conclude that this issue is not properly before us on appeal. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Charles Moore was hired by the City of Chattanooga in October 1997 as a code inspector in the city's housing division. Was $20. Also hired as a code inspector on that day was Mary Hutson. Hutson is a white woman. Moore and Sheats are both black men. Who was the department's administrator at the time the three new hires began.
OPINION/ORDER
Sex and whether children will live in the household. Listing compatible members who have places to rent out. One of Congress's goals in adopting this provision was to encourage
OPINION/ORDER
That the government did not prove that the payments he made to a city official were actually bribes. That the evidence was sufficient to convict Jennings of bribery. Jennings also contends that a new trial is required because the jury instructions misstated the
OPINION/ORDER
Construction financing was secured through a commitment from the Federal National Mortgage Association that included the Wellington Place project along with three other AHDC enterprises.
OPINION/ORDER
Also paid out claims to tens of thousands of individuals whose structures were insured under FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program. After questions were raised concerning how 2 individual disaster assistance was disbursed in one Florida county following one of the hurricanes. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that disclosure of both the names and the addresses was exempt under Exemption 6. At issue today is whether FEMA has established that the names and addresses of 1.3 million individuals who applied for aid or made insurance claims after one of 31 federally declared disasters are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. We conclude that the addresses are not exempt under Exemption 6 because FEMA has failed to meet its heavy burden of showing a 3
OPINION/ORDER
This matter is before us on a Petition for Rehearing filed by the Easttown Township Zoning Board (
OPINION/ORDER
Were on the briefs. Were substituted as counsel for the appellant after oral argument. Was on the brief. Were on the brief for amicus curiae The Chamber of Commerce of the United States. INC. 1837 advertising program is rendered moot by a settlement under which the vendor permanently modified its software and the website owner relinquished all claims. I Gator.com Corporation1 is the proprietor of a software program that enables computer users to store personal information including addresses. One of the targets of Gator's pop up advertisements was the website operated by L. When a user of computer equipment on which the Gator software was installed visited L. L. Bean alleged that these pop up advertisements misappropriated the good will associated with its trademark and threatened to initiate legal action if Gator did not discontinue this advertising practice. A deceptive or unfair trade or Gator.com Corporation is now known as the Claria Corporation. It will be referred to as
OPINION/ORDER
Their primary legal claim was that the Condominium Association had discriminated against plaintiffs in violation of the Fair Housing Act (
OPINION/ORDER
Because these claims are untimely under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court properly concluded that no genuine issues of fact remain and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. I. Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority is a public agency chartered by the State of Ohio and funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide subsidized housing for eligible citizens of Summit County. The position from which he was suspended on August 9. After which Singfield was escorted from the premises. Which included the following statement: This letter is to confirm our conversation earlier today. That you are being placed on a minimum thirty day unpaid suspension. You are also required to seek assistance for anger management. The reason for this suspension is due to an incident which occurred on August 8. You were sent home for the day. Your keys were found hanging from the lockbox. After examining the keys it was found that six of the keys were duplicated master keys.
OPINION/ORDER
P.C. was on brief. LLP was on brief. LLP were on brief. That is only a step along the road to meaningful relief. This is a case in point.
OPINION/ORDER
Because this case is before us in the unusual procedural posture of an appeal from a consent judgment. Before we reach this question we must consider whether the stringent conditions for appellate jurisdiction over a consent judgment have been met. The case also presents an interesting issue of justiciability insofar as the consent judgment is founded on a settlement of the underlying claim under which the plaintiff gets more or less depending on the legal rule we apply on appeal. Two of her injuries to her knee and to her shoulder were clearly caused by the accident. Was more difficult to evaluate because Keefe had a preexisting problem with her wrist. It was not immediately clear how much of the post accident condition of her wrist was attributable to the accident. She asserts in this suit that Prudential acted in bad faith by failing to settle her claims for her knee and shoulder injuries while it was awaiting more information regarding her wrist injury. Are satisfied that the understanding between the parties that Prudential would appeal was sufficiently clear to avoid waiver.
Abbey is a resident of Longmont. Abbey was persuaded by employees of the Veterans Administration (VA). Which was entirely separate from his position with Boulder County. Involved overseeing the financial affairs of veterans who for various reasons were unable to manage their own financial affairs. The primary responsibility of the named fiduciaries was to sign blank checks for Abbey. Abbey was to insure that the veterans had housing. Summarizing how each veteran's funds were spent.
In return for his work as a fiduciary. Abbey was entitled to an administrative fee under Colorado law equal to five percent of each veteran's income. It is unclear whether any of these charges were submitted for approval in state court.
Beginning in approximately October 1989 (roughly coinciding with Lancelot's absence from work because of cancer and his subsequent retirement). Abbey told her he was counseling many of the veterans without compensation and it would be a conflict of interest for him to personally submit bills to the veterans for counseling.
OPINION/ORDER
It is locally operated and staffed by local employees. Is subject to HUD approval. Which was reviewed by HUD. The eligibility technician is identified as the individual who determines whether a particular housing applicant meets federally imposed threshold criteria. Hang screened applications to verify whether persons were initially qualified or entitled to any preferences for low income housing. HUD did not have any direct role in paying Hang or conducting his If an applicant qualifies for a preference. He will receive more desirable placement on the waiting list for federally subsidized housing. 2 2 performance reviews. Used his bilingual skills to prey on housing applicants who were also immigrants from Southeast Asian countries. Hang apparently communicated to these unfortunate and vulnerable victims that they would have to pay him money in order to obtain federally subsidized housing. Was taking some sort of medication. When police officials notified the court that Hang's friends and relatives were terrorizing certain individuals who had testified against the convicted felon.
OPINION/ORDER
439 was against the clear weight of the evidence. Because we conclude that it was not. We must also decide whether plaintiffs who have established a defendant's liability under the Fair Housing Act must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of future violations of the Act in order to be entitled to injunctive relief under the Act. Ltd. (the partnership or Silver Sage) is a partnership organized to purchase and develop lowincome housing at a mobile home park in the City of Desert Hot Springs. Paul Saben and Richard Earlix were the partnership's principals. Which was located in the city.1 The partnership initially sought to finance the project with bonds to be issued by Riverside County. The partnership was able to obtain a commitment for a favorable fifty five year mortgage in the amount of $4. That provision requires local voter approval of any low rent housing projects that are
OPINION/ORDER
439 was against the clear weight of the evidence. Because we conclude that it was not. We must also decide whether plaintiffs who have established a defendant's liability under the Fair Housing Act must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of future violations of the Act in order to be entitled to injunctive relief under the Act. Ltd. (the partnership or Silver Sage) is a partnership organized to purchase and develop lowincome housing at a mobile home park in the City of Desert Hot Springs. Paul Saben and Richard Earlix were the partnership's principals. Which was located in the city.1 The partnership initially sought to finance the project with bonds to be issued by Riverside County. The partnership was able to obtain a commitment for a favorable fifty five year mortgage in the amount of $4. That provision requires local voter approval of any low rent housing projects that are
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Benjamin F. The Secretary argues that the District Court erred in concluding that the milk cooperatives were
OPINION/ORDER
2001 is withdrawn. 439 was against the clear weight of the evidence. Because we conclude that it was not. We must also decide whether plaintiffs who have established a defendant's liability under the Fair Housing Act must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of future violations of the Act in order to be entitled to injunctive relief under the Act. Ltd. (the partnership or Silver Sage) is a partnership organized to purchase and develop lowincome housing at a mobile home park in the City of Desert Hot Springs. Paul Saben and Richard Earlix were the partnership's principals. Which was located in the city.1 The partnership initially sought to finance the project with bonds to be issued by Riverside County. The partnership was able to obtain a commitment for a favorable fifty five year mortgage in the amount of $4. That provision requires local voter approval of any low rent housing projects that are
OPINION/ORDER
2001 is withdrawn. 439 was against the clear weight of the evidence. Because we conclude that it was not. We must also decide whether plaintiffs who have established a defendant's liability under the Fair Housing Act must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of future violations of the Act in order to be entitled to injunctive relief under the Act. Ltd. (the partnership or Silver Sage) is a partnership organized to purchase and develop lowincome housing at a mobile home park in the City of Desert Hot Springs. Paul Saben and Richard Earlix were the partnership's principals. Which was located in the city.1 The partnership initially sought to finance the project with bonds to be issued by Riverside County. The partnership was able to obtain a commitment for a favorable fifty five year mortgage in the amount of $4. That provision requires local voter approval of any low rent housing projects that are
OPINION/ORDER
Contending their claims against the Met Council were not removable. Even if they were. The Hollman lawsuit claimed public housing in Minneapolis was concentrated in racially segregated neighborhoods. The lawsuit was settled by consent decree in Hollman v. The plaintiffs (appellants before this court) claimed that because the Minneapolis public schools have disproportionate enrollments of poor and minority students.
OPINION/ORDER
We affirm because we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that the California Supreme Court will hold that an employer can assert an affirmative defense under certain circumstances to a claim that a supervisor has sexually harassed the plaintiff in violation of FEHA. I Kohler was employed as a project coordinator with InterTel from August 18. InterTel is a single source provider of telephone. Kohler was responsible for programming telephone systems at customer sites and training customers on how to use the Inter Tel telephone system. Saying
OPINION/ORDER
We affirm because we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that the California Supreme Court will hold that an employer can assert an affirmative defense under certain circumstances to a claim that a supervisor has sexually harassed the plaintiff in violation of FEHA. I Kohler was employed as a project coordinator with InterTel from August 18. InterTel is a single source provider of telephone. Kohler was responsible for programming telephone systems at customer sites and training customers on how to use the Inter Tel telephone system. Saying
OPINION/ORDER
Davis were on the brief. Was on the brief. 10398 BROWN v. I Brenda Brown was a detective in the Tucson Police Department.1 She was hired in May of 1982 and earned a promotion to detective in 1988. A Brown was assigned to Team Four of the Department's Neighborhood Crimes Unit. Where her immediate supervisor was Sgt. Informed Holliday that she was to be excused from nighttime call out duty. Because Brown is suing the city because of the alleged actions of the police department. We will refer to the defendant throughout as the
OPINION/ORDER
It contends that public safety would be compromised if officers with physical limitations that prevent them from forcibly arresting suspects were permitted to perform more than the prescribed handful of jobs on its police force. We must agree with the plaintiffs that the City's policy relegating them to unsatisfactory jobs in which they have little or no possibility for promotion simply cannot be reconciled with the ADA's
OPINION/ORDER
Because we have determined that the circumstances under which the accident occurred were not incident to military service. I. BACKGROUND The 1993 United States Military National Championship Rugby Tournament (
OPINION/ORDER
It contends that public safety would be compromised if officers with physical limitations that prevent them from forcibly arresting suspects were permitted to perform more than the prescribed handful of jobs on its police force. We must agree with the plaintiffs that the City's policy relegating them to unsatisfactory jobs in which they have little or no possibility for promotion simply cannot be reconciled with the ADA's
OPINION/ORDER
Appointed 3 by the court for Samuel Carson at the time the brief was filed. Were on the joint brief. Assistant United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. I. Facts This case is a story of mayhem and disorder in and around the 200 block of K Street. Underlying the violence was appellants' organized and massive business of selling drugs. Some appellants also were convicted for numerous attempted murders. All appellants were convicted for a racketeering conspiracy. Appellant William Sweeney was incarcerated when some of these purchases took place. Crucial to the government's case was testimony from former associates of appellants and nearby residents testimony that was undoubtedly difficult to obtain given evidence. That some of the appellants have a history of murdering or attempting to murder potential witnesses against them. Not every detail is known about appellants' lengthy pattern of lawlessness that preceded their indictment in 1998. Our summary is by no means 5 exhaustive of all facts underlying that activity.
OPINION/ORDER
Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §1291. The notices of appeal and cross appeal were timely filed under Fed. I. Background The following facts are taken from the district court's memorandum opinion. The Omaha and Winnebago Indian Reservations are located in eastern Thurston County. The Village is a small community located in eastern Thurston County. Was 80% Native American.3 The individual plaintiffs. Are Native American citizens and voters in Thurston County. Are located in Thurston County. The County Board is composed of seven members elected from single member districts. Members are nominated in partisan primary elections and elected in general elections in even numbered years. 7) are elected in gubernatorial election years. 6) are elected in presidential election years. 43.92% are Native Americans and 55.67% are whites. 35.9% are Native Americans and 63.54% are whites. Which are the majority minority districts.
OPINION/ORDER
That the right to a jury trial on state law claims brought in federal court is governed by state. Marra and DiGravio had no right to have a jury decide their PHRA claims. Is responsible for developing and operating public housing in the City of Philadelphia. Edward Marra and Albert DiGravio were both employed in supervisory positions in the Inspections Division of PHA's 3 Design and Construction Department.1 DiGravio served as a Rehabilitation Supervisor. Marra's direct supervisor was Georgette Galbreth. Are recounted below. He was responsible for arranging and overseeing the inspection of houses that had been rehabilitated by PHA to ensure compliance with all pertinent housing codes. Among the several housing inspectors who worked under Marra were DiGravio. Formal notices of appointment were sent to both Paladino and Wright but later rescinded after George Fields. Although his salary and job duties were not materially affected by the demotion. Finding that PHA had discriminated against them in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.4 Fields and three other PHA employees (no one of whom is of particular relevance to our case) were also named as defendants.
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: Slip opinion at 14626. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. INC. 7 The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. (UPS) who wanted to drive small trucks and vans but are not qualified to do so under a vision protocol that UPS developed when the Department of Transportation (DOT) removed vehicles weighing less than 10. Alleging that UPS's vision protocol discriminates against disabled persons who are otherwise qualified to drive small trucks and vans. The district court found in a published opinion that Francis and Ligas were disabled but not otherwise qualified. That Hogya was not disabled. The court found that the ability to drive safely is an essential job 8 EEOC v. It also found that UPS's vision protocol is not job related or consistent with business necessity because less discriminatory alternatives exist to job qualify applicants. In all events unless those who fail to pass are provided an individualized opportunity to demonstrate that they are as qualified to drive safely as those whom UPS ordinarily hires.
OPINION/ORDER
(UPS) who wanted to drive small trucks and vans but are not qualified to do so under a vision protocol that UPS developed when the Department of Transportation (DOT) removed vehicles weighing less than 10. INC. 14625 vision protocol discriminates against disabled persons who are otherwise qualified to drive small trucks and vans. The district court found in a published opinion that Francis and Ligas were disabled but not otherwise qualified. That Hogya was not disabled. The court found that the ability to drive safely is an essential job function but that the company's safety standard must be applied equally to monocular as well as binocular applicants. It also found that UPS's vision protocol is not job related or consistent with business necessity because less discriminatory alternatives exist to job qualify applicants. In all events unless those who fail to pass are provided an individualized opportunity to demonstrate that they are as qualified to drive safely as those whom UPS ordinarily hires. INC. injunctive relief that was ordered.
OPINION/ORDER
On the grounds that Defendants terminated a real estate sales contract with the Lindsays one day after learning that the Lindsays are black. Page 2 the further reason that they failed to plead facts showing that the purchase agreement executed by the parties was valid and enforceable. Facts The Lindsays are an African American couple who reside in Richland County. The Yateses' home is located at 2268 Eckert Road. Which were not for sale. The Lindsays allege that Sluss and Eicher told them that Brent Yates was authorized by his mother to negotiate the sale of the property and execute a purchase agreement. Or national origin.
OPINION/ORDER
Its outpatient mental health clinic in central Milwaukee is overcrowded. Because the structure is in a business zone. A new hearing was held. The outcome was the same. Because the Board concluded that WCS could have purchased or leased space elsewhere. More than 785 acres of land within WCS's preferred area for operating the mental health clinic are zoned for medical clinics. No deviation from Milwaukee's normal rules would have been required to use any of these sites. A special use permit was inappropriate because a medical clinic at the site could undermine a redevelopment plan that called for a commercial enterprise to be situated there. There are lots of specific ones. There is a general accommodation rule in Title III. That the legal rules are identical. (b) the building WCS purchased was its leastcost option. WCS is strapped for cash and can do more for its clients if it can situate facilities where the benefit/cost ratio is highest. Getting from that proposition to a legal rule that Milwaukee must permit WCS its preferred location is.
Plaintiff Searles had been in the Kansas prison system since 1989 and had originally listed his religious preference as Baptist. Plaintiff was transferred from HCF to the facility in El Dorado. Plaintiff's requests were immediately granted by the El Dorado chaplain. An inmate wishing to join a religious group other than that which was his original preference may be required to participate in the
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
OPINION/ORDER
Unable to obtain shelter on the night each was cited or arrested. I. Facts and Procedural Background The facts underlying this appeal are largely undisputed. Robert Lee Purrie (
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The determination of a reasonable attor ney's fee for a prevailing party under a fee shifting statute generally is a disagreeable and tedious task. Especially wher e the fee petition is vigorously contested and the petition is in behalf of numerous lawyers who worked on the appeal. W e are required to analyze the motion and supporting data to ascertain whether the amount claimed is reasonable. The motion is especially troublesome because in this single issue appeal. The total sum claimed is $100. We now have befor e us the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs in connection with their appeal to this court. We have no stipulations in the motion before us. It acknowledges that the appellees are entitled to receive a fee award. Asserts that the fee request is
OPINION/ORDER
The appellants were members of the Union while employed by the Times. Most counts were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the appellants' failure to exhaust administrative remedies or to their lateness infiling charges. The male appellants' sex discrimination claims were dismissed for lack of standing to sue under Title VII and NJLAD. We conclude that the Amended Complaint should not have been dismissed in its entirety. We will reverse. We do so based on our determination that
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The Blockbuster Sony Music Entertainment Centre (
OPINION/ORDER
Pollock were on brief. Sheehan P.C. 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.
OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief. This appeal is the second appearance here of a case challenging a state law regulating speech and activities within a buffer zone around health care facilities which perform abortions. Women who are regular pro life
OPINION/ORDER
Holding that their California state claims were foreclosed because Abercrombie's use of the photograph was protected by the First Amendment. Those claims were also preempted by the federal Copyright Act. That Hawaii law was the proper choice of law for some of these claims. That the Lanham Act claim was precluded by the First Amendment and it was also precluded by the nominative fair use doctrine. That there was insufficient evidence to sustain the negli13169 gence or defamation claims. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Abercrombie is an outfitter catering to young people. The Quarterly is Abercrombie's largest advertising vehicle. The primary purpose of the Quarterly is to build brand awareness and increase sales. Each issue is over 250 pages in length and embraces a theme such as collegiate lifestyle. Approximately one quarter of each issue is devoted to stories. The t shirts were advertised for sale in the Quarterly. Still another article entitled
OPINION/ORDER
The district court erred in finding that the government's decision to exercise a peremptory challenge to a juror was not motivated by discriminatory intent. Believes that the judgment should be reversed to the extent that it imposed the sentence and thus is filing a separate opinion dissenting from the affirmance of the sentence. B. Milan's Crimes as a Public Official Milan was elected a member of the Camden city council on November 7. Was elected its president on January 1. Milan was elected mayor of Camden. A position to which he was sworn in on July 1. A government certified minority owned business enterprise which was to compete for government contracts on Natale's behalf. Milan arranged to have the title of a 1990 Chevrolet Lumina Van transferred to his fiance from Nick's Towing. As in the other instances we have recounted with respect to improper benefits. The owner of the Camden office building in which Milan's mayoral campaign headquarters was located. To draft a fake lease to demonstrate that monthly lease payments were due from Milan's campaign 7 even though Milan's campaign was using Willis's office space without charge.
OPINION/ORDER
Talley was not on trial for murder. The evidence was insufficient to permit the inference that he had committed murder. As to Norman Wilson we remand with instructions to vacate his conspiracy conviction and its related sentence because conspiracy is a predicate offense for his continuing criminal enterprise conviction. From 1988 until late 1994.1 Perkins and Norman Wilson were also charged with operating a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) through an extended series of drug trafficking violations. Perkins began cooperating with the government after he was arrested. Who were tried together. Perkins testified that he and Norman Wilson were partners and co managers of the Court Boys drug ring. Perkins was responsible for obtaining wholesale supplies of powder cocaine. Norman Wilson was in charge of cooking the cocaine into crack. Who admitted their involvement with the Court Boys organization and who were testifying for the government under plea agreements. We will discuss the evidence in greater detail as it becomes pertinent to the issues raised.
OPINION/ORDER
Holding that their California state claims were foreclosed because Abercrombie's use of the photograph was protected by the First Amendment. Those claims were also preempted by the federal Copyright Act. That Hawaii law was the proper choice of law for some of these claims. That the Lanham Act claim was precluded by the First Amendment and it was also precluded by the nominative fair use doctrine. That there was insufficient evidence to sustain the negli13169 gence or defamation claims. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Abercrombie is an outfitter catering to young people. The Quarterly is Abercrombie's largest advertising vehicle. The primary purpose of the Quarterly is to build brand awareness and increase sales. Each issue is over 250 pages in length and embraces a theme such as collegiate lifestyle. Approximately one quarter of each issue is devoted to stories. The t shirts were advertised for sale in the Quarterly. Still another article entitled
OPINION/ORDER
Which is part of the FEHA and provides. That
OPINION/ORDER
Were on the brief. I Garrison Johnson is an African American prisoner in the California Department of Corrections (
OPINION/ORDER
This is an interlocutory appeal by the defendant. The lead plaintiff is Gail Watson Chiang (
OPINION/ORDER
This is an interlocutory appeal by the defendant. The lead plaintiff is Gail Watson Chiang (
OPINION/ORDER
Pollock & Sheehan Incorporated were on brief for appellant. Reed & Kaplan were on brief for appellee. The order of taking was recorded. Cumberland's ownership rights in the property were extinguished. Where Cumberland's bankruptcy case was pending. The bankruptcy court found that Cumberland was entitled to recover from MEDIC $380. Therefore judgment was issued for the net amount of $279. Because Cumberland could have accepted the pro tanto payment and obtained use of the funds at that time. The decision of the bankruptcy court was subsequently affirmed by the United States District Court for the District ofMassachusetts. Cumberland argues that the bankruptcy court erred in awarding MEDIC fair market rent during the holdover period during which Cumberland was challenging the eminent domain proceeding. Discussion We begin with Cumberland's claim that it is not liable for the use and occupancy charges that the bankruptcy court awarded to MEDIC. MEDIC was required to give Cumberland a thirty day notice to 1.
OPINION/ORDER
Robbins and Rubin & Rudman were on brief for appellants. Was on brief for Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture. Carens & DeGiacomo were on brief for Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation. Based on findings that rising production costs and flat dairy prices were devastating the industry.1 The Commissioner determined that a price stabilization system was necessary. Into which each licensed milk distributor (dealer) in Massachusetts is required to pay monthly assessments (
OPINION/ORDER
Are vacated. They are replaced by the Opinion and Dissent filed today. The petitions for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The clerk is instructed not to accept for filing any new petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc in this case. 13774 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. EPA preserved The
OPINION/ORDER
This is a death penalty appeal which presents. These claims are: (1) that trial delays denied Gattis the right to a speedy trial. (2) that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by an improper peremptory challenge. (3) that trial counsel were ineffective. (4) that the sentencing court violated Gattis' constitutional rights by sentencing him under Delaware's revised death penalty even though the crime of which he was convicted occurred prior to the statute's enactment. Our review is confined to those five claims. We will. Will affirm. The question of particular significance is the manner of dealing with an attack on a peremptory challenge pursuant to Batson v. Also to factors that were properly considered. We hold that the state courts' application of
OPINION/ORDER
Were socializing at Pioneer Park. When approximately nine white supremacists who were
OPINION/ORDER
P.C. were on brief for appellant. Hoag & Eliot was on brief for appellee. Claiming that she was entitled to excess pay for overtime hours worked during her employment with Putnam. That she was terminated in retaliation for requesting such pay. She now contends that the district court applied an incorrect measure in calculating her overtime pay and erred in ruling that her complaint to her supervisors was not protected activity. Valerio was hired by Putnam. Putnam told her at the time she was hired that the position was considered
OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief. Were on brief. Appellant Fidel Morillo was arrested along with five others in connection with the seizure of three kilos of cocaine from drug couriers in the San Juan. The government contended that Morillo's role in the conspiracy was to allow his alleged co conspirators to use his apartment as the operational center of the drug conspiracy. His sole argument on appeal is that the evidence against him was insufficient to support a conviction and that. The trial judge should have allowed his motion for acquittal. Although we agree with the trial judge that this is a close case. It is near the San Juan airport. Morillo was given the only key to the apartment. Which was separated from the living room by a door. Only long enough to tell the landlord that she was leaving permanently to return to her native Santo Domingo. No one was in the apartment when Dur n and Peguero were dropped off there. Morillo changed into some clothes that were kept in the bedroom closet. Was wearing a man's shirt that she had obtained from the bedroom closet.
OPINION/ORDER
I Oti Kaga is a non profit corporation established by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal government pursuant to the United States Housing Act of 1937. Oti Kaga's purpose is to acquire. SDHDA is an independent public instrumentality exercising essential public functions under S.D. SDHDA is responsible for. Thomas Schramm and Leland Kleinsasser are members of SDHDA's Board of Commissioners. Appellee Darlys Baum is SDHDA's Executive Director. Baum and the board members were sued individually and in their official capacities. Is authorized by IRC § 42. State housing agencies are responsible for allocating tax credits for the construction of low income housing. The annual plan must be prepared by the state's housing agency and approved by the governmental unit of which the agency is a part. SDHDA is the authorized housing agency for South Dakota. The second program at issue is the HOME Program. Indian tribes were participating jurisdictions in the HOME Program. 42 U.S.C. § 12747(a)(2). Indian housing assistance was funded directly through Indian Housing Block Grants (IHBG).
OPINION/ORDER
Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. 578 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. The Problem of Stormwater Runoff Stormwater runoff is one of the most significant sources of water pollution in the nation. SediThe
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Marjati Winarto was laid off from her job with Toshiba America Electronic Components. After the verdicts were returned. Remand for a new trial to determine whether Toshiba is liable for punitive damages and on the amount of punitive damages due from defendants. She was well qualified for the job. She held degrees in relevant fields and was more experienced as a computer programmer than most of the other members of the PC group. Roger Taylor (
OPINION/ORDER
2001 is amended as follows: 1) Page 15760. Circuit Judge: Dossey Douglas (
OPINION/ORDER
Who all have the human immunodeficiency virus (
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Marjati Winarto was laid off from her job with Toshiba America Electronic Components. After the verdicts were returned. Remand for a new trial to determine whether Toshiba is liable for punitive damages and on the amount of punitive damages due from defendants. She was well qualified for the job. She held degrees in relevant fields and was more experienced as a computer programmer than most of the other members of the PC group. Roger Taylor (
OPINION/ORDER
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.
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: At slip op. 2596. When a medical examination is conducted at the proper time and in the proper manner. Or that an employer is foreclosed from refusing to hire an applicant who does. The panel judges have voted to deny appellee's petition for panel rehearing. Judges Graber and Fisher have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be considered. Who all have the human immunodeficiency virus (
OPINION/ORDER
2001 is amended as follows: 1) Page 15760. Circuit Judge: Dossey Douglas (
OPINION/ORDER
Because NIBCO has failed to demonstrate that the protective order was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. I. Factual and Procedural Background The plaintiffs in this dispute are twenty three Latina and Southeast Asian female immigrants once employed as production workers at NIBCO's factory in Fresno. California.1 All of the plaintiffs are of limited English proficiency. NIBCO allegedly responded with a The suit was originally brought by twenty five named plaintiffs as representatives of a similarly situated class. Some plaintiffs were demoted or transferred to undesirable job assignments. All plaintiffs were terminated in the period between July 30. NIBCO asked where she was married and where she was born. Although Rivera had specified that she was of
OPINION/ORDER
The general issue we address is whether Fair Acres Geriatric Center. The jury was asked to decide whether. Wagner was
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: May a state department of corrections be held liable for prison officials' failure to correct a hostile work environment that is the result of male prisoners' sexual harassment of female guards? Freitag alleged that the CDCR and Pelican Bay were delinquent in addressing the sexually hostile environment created by prison inmates particularly in confronting the pervasive practice at Pelican Bay of inmate exhibitionist masturbation directed at female officers and that she was retaliated against and ultimately terminated due to her repeated complaints regarding the problem. Inmates in the SHU are subjected to harsher and more restrictive conditions than exist at any other prison in the state system.1 On September 12. Freitag was working a relief shift in the SHU control tower when she witnessed Inmate X standing naked in the exercise yard masturbating. Freitag was instructed by her direct supervisor not to document the incident. Which are placed in inmates' central files but ordinarily do not form the basis for disciplinary action.
OPINION/ORDER
Inc. was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. Because we conclude that the energy related components of HUD and FmHA utility reimbursements are excluded by statute from income under the Food Stamp Act. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The defendant appellees are the Secretary of USDA (Secretary) and the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Human Services. Plaintiffs are a class of tenants receiving food stamps. In privately owned FmHA assisted housing.1 1The class includes [a]ll the persons in the State of Maine who will receive or who have received FmHA and/or HUD utility [reimbursements] anytime since March 1. 1990 and whose food stamp benefits were or will be 2 Plaintiffs.
OPINION/ORDER
Oxford Houses are a nationwide network of self governing. Are expelled if they relapse. residents. § 300x 25. An Oxford House must have a minimum of eight to twelve See 42 U.S.C. The Oxford House site selection and minimum resident criteria have put Oxford Houses at odds with many local zoning officials.1 See City of Edmonds v. The City amended the code and granted Oxford House A an occupancy Oxford House dismissed this lawsuit without prejudice and then was awarded $35. 000 in attorney's fees under the fee The City appeals the district court's decision that Our recent this lawsuit was the catalyst for the City's favorable action. decision in Oxford House C v. Establishes that the lawsuit was unreasonable because Oxford House did not first give the City an opportunity to grant a reasonable accommodation. It could not have obtained an occupancy permit without an exemption from the single family zoning restriction. The City's amended code provides that a
OPINION/ORDER
We are obliged to view the trial evidence in a light favorable to the government. Who were sometimes referred to by the witnesses in this case as
OPINION/ORDER
The Property is the only location within Morgan Hill actually zoned for hospital use. Provided such uses are shown on the development plan for a particular PUD district as approved by the city council.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Morro v. The central issue in this appeal is whether the City of Birmingham's Police Chief is a final policymaker with respect to disciplinary suspension decisions at the City's police department. We would be inclined to hold that the Chief is not a final policymaker. Because his disciplinary suspension decisions are subject to meaningful administrative review by the Jefferson County Personnel Board. For that reason and because no issue that was preserved by the City warrants reversal of the judgment. We will not reverse the judgement imposing municipal liability in this case.<p> <b>I. Was patrolling the Kingston Housing Project with Morro. Was arrested on charges of inciting a riot. Arrington was arrested by Officer Jerry Bahakel. Arrington was tried in municipal court before Judge Carol Smitherman. The trial was widely attended by the press and interested citizens. Judge Smitherman found Arrington not guilty of all the charges against her.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2003/022047.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Board is the only named party electing to participate in this appeal. A. Pre 1996 Parole Considerations in Pennsylvania Thomas is currently serving a life sentence for the 1964 rape and murder of a 12 year old girl in Philadelphia. He was again convicted.3 His second conviction was upheld by the 2. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability is required before appeal by a habeas petitioner will be heard. A certificate of appealability was issued by the District Court. Thus our jurisdiction is proper. Although it appears state court recourse was exhausted by an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. That case is not part of this record. Exhaustion is not jurisdictional and is waivable. Exhaustion is deemed waived. The relevant facts in the case before us are largely undisputed. Our review of the District Court is plenary. 3. The first conviction was rejected because the prosecution's lead witness. Was found to have falsified her credentials and to have perjured herself in another case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200408/03-7057a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/96-6445.opa.html">MORRO V. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morro v. The central issue in this appeal is whether the City of Birmingham's Police Chief is a final policymaker with respect to disciplinary suspension decisions at the City's police department. We would be inclined to hold that the Chief is not a final policymaker. Because his disciplinary suspension decisions are subject to meaningful administrative review by the Jefferson County Personnel Board. For that reason and because no issue that was preserved by the City warrants reversal of the judgment. We will not reverse the judgement imposing municipal liability in this case.<p> <b>I. Was patrolling the Kingston Housing Project with Morro. Was arrested on charges of inciting a riot. Arrington was arrested by Officer Jerry Bahakel. Arrington was tried in municipal court before Judge Carol Smitherman. The trial was widely attended by the press and interested citizens. Judge Smitherman found Arrington not guilty of all the charges against her.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022340.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because there was no error in the ulti 4 U.S. We repeat only the facts that are relevant to the appeal. LLC and Nielsen Enterprises LLC will be referred to collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1011.html">LAMPI CORPORATION V. AMERICAN POWER PRODUCTS, INC<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Michael A. Of counsel on the brief were <u>G. Which is drawn to a miniature. The district court also concluded that the claims were not invalid. 227 patent is a small. Connecting element which is shaped into a housing which supports a fluorescent lamp tube 5.". The patent further explains:</p> <dir> <dir> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041291np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant union articulates only two injuries for which it seeks redress: (1) the union's overall goals and mission of promoting the welfare and morale of its members have been frustrated by the OMB Circular alleged to contain an illegal. Article III's cases and controversies requirement demands that all litigants in federal court demonstrate that they have suffered a concrete. Legally cognizable injury infact that is either actual or imminent. It is incumbent on the party invoking federal jurisdiction to establish this and every other prerequisite for standing. We conclude that any damage that has occurred to the union members' morale and welfare is not a legally cognizable interest. The Supreme Court concluded that a fair housing organization had suffered injury to its organizational goals sufficient to confer Article III standing when two minority testers were discriminated against by a particular housing unit. The plaintiff organization was able to point to a right to equal access to housing information for minorities.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1926p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Together with a number of individuals who are residents of those R&B houses. Sued in the district court to have the Rooming and Boarding House Municipal Licensing Law. Defendants are the Township of Neptune and the State of New Jersey.1 The FHAA declares that it is unlawful
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1828.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jefferson Melish</U> was on brief. The scope of that jurisdiction was narrow. The Authority and plaintiff appellant Ninigret Development Corporation (Ninigret) a Rhode Island business corporation in which a member of the Tribe apparently is a principal embarked upon a series of business transactions.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0418p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That gender was not a bona fide occupational qualification (a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/062665P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petruk and Stevenson now appeal the district court's1 determination that they are jointly and severally liable for restitution to the U.S. We conclude that the government's actual loss in this type of case is the amount of subsidies paid minus the amount HUD would have paid had Petruk and Stevenson timely and truthfully disclosed the relevant circumstances. Because the documentary record confirms that no subsidies would have been paid. Petruk certified annually that her household comprised only herself and her two children when they were living with her. Defendants admitted only that Stevenson
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5040.html">PONDER V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/05/013080P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Rowes were denied both a loan guaranteed by the Farmers Home Administration (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept95/94-1170.html">SHERIDAN SQUARE PARTNERSHIP V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR>
The owners contended that HUD was constrained to calculate yearly adjustments using the applicable Automatic Annual Adjustment Factor (AAAF). Equaled (in most cases) only thirty percent of the rent adjustments to which the owners would have been entitled under the AAAF system in effect. We must
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117064.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. were convicted of a variety of federal offenses stemming from an affirmative action fraud scheme they perpetrated regarding federally funded road construction projects. I. Because the defendants are challenging their convictions. The FDOT was contractually obligated to ensure that at least 12% of the USDOT's funds ultimately went to 2
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1444.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Robert G. Of counsel was Pamela S. With him on the brief were Paul R.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></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-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5097.html">SEABOARD LUMBER 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="336"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/961556P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) holding that the indemnity agreement was not void as an adhesion contract. Background The underlying facts are not in dispute. The complex was owned by the Butler County Council on Housing for the Elderly and Handicapped (the Butler County Council). Was developed with the assistance of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). elevators at the complex. While the maintenance service contract was still in effect. The family members who brought this state court action are referred to as USF&G. Which was paid by USF&G. Alleging that Barnes's negligence caused the (Hereinafter USF&G and Barnes are together referred to as Housing Authority moved for summary judgment asserting that Appellees moved for The district court and granted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="334"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011887.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Estate contends that the Tax Court should have applied a minority discount by discounting Godley's interest in the partnerships because he lacked control over them. Whether a minority discount is appropriate in a given situation is part of the larger factual question of valuation. Inasmuch as the Tax Court's valuation of Godley's interest was not clearly erroneous. The remaining fifty percent was owned by Godley's son Frank D. Were formed in 1978 and owned and operated housing projects for elderly tenants. Was formed in 1980 for the purpose of managing the operations of the Housing Partnerships. Housing Assistance payments are made to the Housing Partnerships to cover the difference between the rental rates agreed to under the HAP contracts and the portion of the rent paid by eligible families. Rocky Mount was thirty years and the term for Clinton was twenty years. Jr. was the managing partner for the Housing Partnerships. Jr. was the managing partner. Godley was actively involved in the Housing Partnerships.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="334"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2F3D0EAED61F52D5882571B10081495F/$file/0435210.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs' homes were built with wood foundations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The MHHO Program was designed to These facts. Are taken from Plaintiffs' complaint. Which is presumed true for purposes of this Rule 12(b)(6) proceeding. The families were required to contribute land. Each family was required to make monthly payments in an amount calibrated to their income. The homebuyers were made responsible for maintenance of the house. When the program was formalized in the Indian Housing Act of 1988. The Blackfeet Housing Authority was charged with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="332"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="332"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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/200015858.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was constitutionally firm. I. The facts surrounding the death of Lathen Aaron Dodd are undisputed. Any patrons who were not already lying down were forced to the ground. The perpetrators continued to abuse them physically patrons were 2 hit on the head. Once all of the customers were secured on the ground. As the patrons were being robbed of their possessions. Demanded to know who the owner of the bar was. This robber demanded to know where the rest of the money was. When he was told that there was no more money. The patrons were forced to crawl to the restroom at the back of the bar. While they were on the way to the bathroom. More shots were fired. Dodd was then taken to the hospital. The cause of death was bleeding that resulted from a gunshot wound to the chest and abdomen. 3 A. Attorney Herbert Massie was appointed to represent Brownlee. His representation ended when Massie was suspended from the practice of law for failing to comply with his continuing legal education requirements.
</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//jan96/94-7089.man.html">DILLARD V. CITY OF GREENSBORO<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dillard v. Because the district court did not have the benefit of <i>Miller</i> when it adopted the challenged redistricting plan.
</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=95-2234.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Allen & Snyder was on brief for appellees. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND City Metal is a corporation that buys and sells scrap metal. Katz was hired by City Metal on July 1. Because the definition of
</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/jan96/94-7089.man.html">DILLARD V. CITY OF GREENSBORO<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dillard v. Because the district court did not have the benefit of <i>Miller</i> when it adopted the challenged redistricting plan.
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-2964_050.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wayne Stephens was employed as a manager in a technical support unit for Accenture's New York office when he repeatedly used an
</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/E9C571F39150FF1B88256C290056416C/$file/0057222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over Luce Forward's timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. His employment was at will. Will be heard before a retired State or Federal judge in the county containing the firm office in which you were last employed. The law of the State in which you last worked will apply. That he
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="330"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993828.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It was located in an area zoned as a Residential Low Density District in the City of Lebanon. Was considered a valid non conforming use. The agreement was actually assigned to Parkview by one of its principals. 2 use permit from a city zoning officer to operate a 70 bed personal care home at the Oakwood location as a continuation of the existing non conforming use. Two residents of the neighborhood where Oakwood was located filed an appeal with the City of Lebanon Zoning Hearing Board (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="330"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="330"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200604/04-7126a.pdf">O:\BENCH_MO\2005-2006\CORKRAN\JANUARY CASES\2922 SHERMAN AVE TENANTS V. DC\SHERMAN AVE OPINION(4-04-06)(FOR PUB).WPD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Robert J. Musolino was on the brief for cross appellant Andrew J. With him on the briefs were John P. Palmore were on the brief for amici curiae National Fair Housing Alliance. Because the district court should have instructed the jury on their DCHRA claim. Columbia Heights is. The following evidence was presented: In early 2000. Was intended to protect the health and safety of building tenants. NSP released a final
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="330"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/011788p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary question is whether the District Court erred in affirming the Bankruptcy Court's order. ]
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="330"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978189.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Certified under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the following class:5 1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="330"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1521_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is African American. I. Background The material facts are undisputed but lengthy. Beamon began working at M&I in 1992 and for the first five and a half years of his career with the company was employed as a trust fund accountant. In November 1997 he was promoted to a supervisory position in the Income Processing Department. The Income Processing Department was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/09/954206P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was sentenced to 293 months in prison for the continuing financial crimes enterprise violation. Lefkowitz argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of any crime. Lefkowitz was President of Citi Equity Group. Or acquire buildings in which a prescribed percentage of the apartment units are occupied by low income tenants. Money raised from limited partners was the project's equity. Remaining debts to the builder were paid. While CEG obtained permanent financing to replace the construction loan once a building was completed. 000 were unbuilt. Funds from limited partners and FSM investors were first deposited in an operating account for each particular investment. 000 was used to pay Lefkowitz's personal expenses. The black hole was $3. IRS agents traced new partnership deposits that cleared negative balances in the central CEG account and then were used to meet Lefkowitz's personal needs and to fund older projects. This practice was not disclosed to CEG investors. Lefkowitz denies that this was fraudulent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="324"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3438_029.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Soy was convicted on arson and explosives charges and was sentenced to life im 2 No. 03 3438 & No. 04 1218 prisonment. Soy's sentence was reduced to 528 months. Facts We have set forth the facts relevant to this litigation in two prior opinions. Soy discussed with Williams who was attending the Indiana State Police Academy at the time and also with Prevatte the possibility of using pipe bombs as diversions for burglaries. The first pipe bomb was detonated in the alley behind a single family dwelling in Hammond. This bomb was designed as a test to determine the response time of emergency personnel. The bomb was attached to a bank of gas meters at the rear of Edo's Lounge in Highland. Which was open to patrons at the time. This bomb was designed as a diversion for an attempted. The bomb was designed to frighten away the occupants of the apartment above the restaurant who might witness the group's attempt to burglarize a neighboring liquor store. A fourth bomb was designed as a diversion for another unsuccessful burglary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="324"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200213348.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Miller is a paraplegic. Miller is housed in disciplinary isolation in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="324"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/951529P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was drug tested and subsequently terminated when his specimen tested positive for marijuana metabolites. We find that there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact: the motivations for requiring Based on Robert Landon to take a drug test on the night of March 2. A reasonable juror could find that Northwest's business reason for requiring Landon to take the drug test was pretextual. A jury must determine whether the proffered reason was a pretext for racial discrimination. invasion of privacy. Summary judgment was inappropriate with respect to Landon's claims of racial discrimination and We reverse the district court's dismissal of those two claims and remand them for trial. Is an African American male hired by appellee. Cleaned NWA Landon was employed pursuant to a bargaining agreement between NWA and the International Association of Machinists. Landon was unloading a NWA airplane using a conveyer belt machine. handle. Because the accident was his third of the year. He could expect to have some time off and that he would be required to take a drug and alcohol test.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/96-9212.man.html">CHARLES V. BURTON (3/12/1999, NO. 96-9212)<BR></A><BR>
Which holds that the Burtons were joint employers and therefore statutorily required to carry insurance or a liability bond.</P> <P> In this case involving the Agricultural Workers Protection Act. The district court found that the appellees were not joint employers of the farm workers under the AWPA and did not award the farm workers actual damages for a violation of the AWPA's registration provision. Both were to share in the profits. The workers were entitled only to statutory damages under 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1). Refused to award actual damages because the workers' injuries were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041063p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The Fair Housing Act was designed to provide nationwide fair housing to Argued October 7. Is a valid exercise of congressional power under the Thirteenth Amendment to eliminate badges and incidents of slavery. Kimberly and Kenneth Mitchell are African Americans who attempted to rent an apartment from Ms. The Mitchells were shown two apartment complexes: the racially homogenous T u sc a n y A partme nts buildin g in Pittsburgh. Both complexes are owned by P&R Properties. They were being steered away from the homogenous Tuscany building toward an apartment in the racially mixed Carnegie building.2 The electronic access card given to the Mitchells was subsequently deactivated. PHRC initiated an investigation and determined there was probable cause to credit the Mitchells' allegations. The Mitchells were told that tenants in the Tuscany building might be intimidated by the race and size of Mr. That the Mitchells would be more comfortable in the Carnegie building since some of the tenants in that building were African American.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/96-9212.man.html">CHARLES V. BURTON (3/12/1999, NO. 96-9212)<BR></A><BR>
Which holds that the Burtons were joint employers and therefore statutorily required to carry insurance or a liability bond.</P> <P> In this case involving the Agricultural Workers Protection Act. The district court found that the appellees were not joint employers of the farm workers under the AWPA and did not award the farm workers actual damages for a violation of the AWPA's registration provision. Both were to share in the profits. The workers were entitled only to statutory damages under 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1). Refused to award actual damages because the workers' injuries were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/11/951289P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A certified class of female inmates who are now or who may be in the future confined in Missouri penal institutions. The women inmates originally brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Only two issues have been raised in this action against Department officials alleging discriminatory treatment and seeking injunctive relief. appeal. The order of the District Court is As to the prison industries claim. District Court's finding of no discriminatory intent is not clearly erroneous. Further concluding that the female inmates are not similarly situated to male inmates for purposes of equal protection analysis. The facts of the case are not in dispute. incarcerated within Missouri Department of 2 Male and female inmates Corrections prisons are The Department operates segregated into particular facilities by gender. fifteen penal institutions. Is male. male and female inmates are assigned custody level classifications ranging from minimum security. Are assigned to male and female inmates with longer sentences to serve and to shorter term inmates of both genders who represent an increased security risk. through C5 at Renz.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981301.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is whether plaintiffs can use 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) to enforce their rights to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA expressly recognizes and encourages such settlements: The Secretary is authorized to supervise the payment of the unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation 3 owing to any employee or employees under . . . this title. The agreement of any employee to accept such payment shall upon payment in full constitute a waiver by such employee of any right he may have . . . to such unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime wages and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(c) (1998). The EMS workers signed a release containing the following language: Your acceptance of back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act means that you have given up any right you may have to bring suit for such back wages under Section 16(b) of the Act. Do not sign this report unless you have actually received payment of the back wages due. Because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1605.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sidley & Austin (as it then was) demoted 32 of its equity partners to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1329.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was James J. Of counsel on the brief was Michael H. With him on the brief were Frank A. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="313"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-7105.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Summary judgment is proper
</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/ED4EEB8B572112F288256ED100749A46/$file/0315066.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Proposed increases exceeding this amount are subject to administrative review. The City was required to place the question of repealing the 1979 Ordinance on the ballot for November 1998. A lawful space vacancy is defined as follows: A vacancy of the mobilehome space occurring because of the termination of the tenancy of the affected mobilehome (1) CASHMAN v. CITY OF COTATI 9343 Vacancy control prevents mobilehome park owners from charging a new base rent or increasing the existing rent for a mobilehome space when ownership of a mobilehome coach is transferred and the coach remains in place. The stated purpose of Ordinance No. 680 is to
</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/01opinions/01-5107.html">MASCO CORPORATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/003070.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both LSS and WHO are non profit organizations which provide community services to residents of Westmoreland County in western Pennsylvania. LSS was selected by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to receive grant moneys under the federal Supportive Housing Program. Because WHO was one of LSS's largest creditors. WHO defended on the ground that LSS's interest in the Supportive Housing Program grant relationship was not property of LSS's bankruptcy estate and thus did not trigger a fiduciary duty on WHO's part. We hold that LSS's interest in the grant r elationship with HUD is excluded from the definition of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/951710U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We affirm the district court's defendants did not intentionally discriminate against him is clearly Dirden is an African American and owns property located in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="309"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5205.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. I. Background(2) Nutter was charged in Oklahoma state court with inter alia Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) and Escape from Legal Custody. Nutter was convicted of the DUI count and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Were dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement. Nutter was transported to the Lexington Assessment Center where he was classified as minimum security and received a security point of 1. Nutter was transferred to the Northeastern Oklahoma Correctional Center (NEOCC) for housing. He was again classified as minimum security with a security point of 1. He was also recommended for promotion to Class Level 3 in July 2004. He was determined to be eligible for community corrections confinement in August 2004. Nutter was apparently promoted to Class Level 3.(4) In August 2004. They were not introduced in the district court. We cannot review them and are limited to the record below.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="309"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/992055.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a Pennsylvania corporation that operates an art gallery on North Latches Lane in Lower Merion Township. The Indenture provides that the Foundation's purpose is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="309"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/07F5FC12B8A98D6988256D35005181DB/$file/0135419.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Berzon was drawn to replace Judge Henry A. Adopted for this litigation for reasons that will appear assert that they performed espionage activities on behalf of the United States against a former Eastern bloc country. The United States will neither confirm nor deny the Does' allegations. Their action is either appropriate only in the Court of Federal Claims or precluded by the venerable doctrine enunciated in Totten v. That the facts as alleged by the Does are true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to their case. Are all. The Does allege that they were citizens of an Eastern bloc country formerly considered an adversary of the United States. Doe approached a person **Part II of the opinion is authored by Judge Canby. The Does recount that after this request was made. The Does further allege that the agents assured them that this assistance was approved at the highest level of authority at the CIA and was mandated by U.S. law. The Does state that although they were initially reluctant to conduct espionage activities.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="309"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3256.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants' petition for rehearing is granted in part. A revised opinion is filed with this order. Rehearing en banc is denied. The Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="309"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3027.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Any party to suit which are Other Representatives for the State of Kansas. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. He claimed the application of the Kansas regulation imposing a $25.00 monthly supervision fee on parolees is an unlawful bill of attainder and violated his rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Fifth. To run consecutive to any sentence he received for his 1985 and 1987 (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Taylor's parole was revoked. The KDOC deducted $50.00 from his inmate trust account to satisfy the October and November 1999 supervision fees.(1) Taylor was again released on parole on November 2. His parole was revoked on July 17. Taylor was paroled for a third time. This parole was revoked on December 23. Regs. 44 5 115(b) is an unlawful bill of attainder. They were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Because indigent offenders are exempt from the payment of supervision fees. Taylor insists he was not indigent at that time.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="309"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0370p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Tax Court held that neither the transfer of the property from LOF to LOF Glass nor the change in ownership of LOF Glass was a disposition of Section 38 property under 26 U.S.C. § 47. I. The facts are not disputed. Petitioner was engaged in the fluid power and plastics businesses and the manufacture of glass. The glass business was referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="309"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan97/95-9003.wpd.html">TELE-COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. COMMISSIONER<BR></A><BR>
I. For purposes of the present appeal the facts are not in dispute. TCI is a cable television operator and the parent corporation of a consolidated group. Were engaged in the cable television business in several states. (1) Unless otherwise indicated all references in this opinion are to sections of the Code as in effect for the taxable years in issue here. Section 334(b)(2) was amended in its entirety such that the language at issue in this appeal is no longer in effect. (2) All remaining issues not addressed in the motion for partial summary judgment below were resolved by stipulation of the parties. Wheeling was liquidated by CTCIO. Wheeling was required. At the time Wheeling was liquidated. CTCIO's basis in the assets received from Wheeling in the liquidation was equal to the amount that CTCIO paid for the Wheeling stock. Reg. 1.334 1(c)(4)(v) requires an increase in stock basis equal to the amount of Wheeling's earnings and profits for the interim period between the date that CTCIO acquired the Wheeling stock and the date that Wheeling was liquidated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="309"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0217p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When defendant appellant Lummie Sanders was convicted of two firearm offenses and sentenced to 37 months imprisonment. Sanders was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and for making a false statement in acquiring a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). The district court ruled that the 1972 conviction was constitutionally infirm. The district court should have considered the 1972 assault conviction in its determination of whether to sentence under the ACCA. The district court determined that involuntary manslaughter was a violent felony for the purposes of the ACCA. The case was remanded once again for resentencing. Arguing that Custis did not foreclose him from attacking his predicate convictions and that his 1972 assault conviction was constitutionally infirm. He was released from custody. Sanders' petition for rehearing was denied in January 2000 and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in March 2000. Which was received and docketed by the district court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="309"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQwNjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4066-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was severely damaged when the train carrying the cargo derailed in Texas. The bills of lading were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="306"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU1MTktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5519-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="306"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="306"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212201.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The manufacturers were their
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="306"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1182.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 32. Replace the material beginning with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="306"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1086.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Angelone</U> was on brief. Namely her Count II claim that the defendants' retaliation infringed on her First Amendment rights and her Count III claim that she was denied equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment because other parents could access their children's records and teachers. The district court ruled that Weber's Count IV claim was barred because of her failure to exhaust administrative remedies specified by IDEA. IDEA requires such exhaustion prior to bringing a civil action pursuant to other federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities if the relief sought is available under subchapter II of IDEA. Such relief is sought through the administrative due process hearing provided in subchapter II of IDEA. <U>See</U> 20 U.S.C. § . Identified as a disabled child in need of special education services under IDEA.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="303"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200012507.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This appeal is mainly about familial status discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. Some of the units (including Plaintiff's) at the pertinent property were purchased by Fanboy. On the court's conclusion that one of Plaintiff's claims was unsupported by sufficient evidence. We stress that this is a case that has been fully tried and in which a jury verdict has been reached. 2 1 Plaintiff testified that the children were ages 12 and 10 at the time of trial. 2
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="303"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054259np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that she was deprived of her right to equal protection under the law and that she was subject to retaliation because she exercised her First Amendment right of free speech. O'Bryant also alleged that the City was obligated to compensate her with overtime pay for the hours she worked in excess of forty hours per week. The District Court concluded that O'Bryant was an administrative employee exempt from the FLSA and therefore not required to be compensated with overtime pay. I. Background O'Bryant was hired in September 1998 by the City as a part time Fair Housing Intake Specialist at a position that paid $14.00 per hour. O'Bryant's position was expanded to full time. She was no longer paid by the hour. The City indicated that this was a management position. The job description stated that the Human Relations Commission Administrator was responsible for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/01/974386P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Rental Research is a credit reporting agency that provides information about prospective tenants to subscribing landlords. Rental Research prepared an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/94-2307.opa.html">FLORIDA MANUFACTURED HOUSING ASSOC. V. CISNEROS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida Manufactured Housing Assoc. v. (3) that the new wind standards are arbitrary and capricious for four different reasons. We hold that the manufacturers' arguments are without merit and deny their request that we set aside the regulations and that we remand to the agency for further proceedings.<p> <b>I. The purposes of the Manufactured Housing Act are to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE16CAFE31E5FACB88256F62005D8BF4/$file/0216155.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Plaintiffs are six former tenants of three substandard Single Resident Occupancy hotels (
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYzMTNfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6313_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(3) should have allowed the jury to consider punitive damages. That action was settled through a consent judgment. Who is deaf. Which is transmitted over telephone lines to a relay service operator who reads the message to the person on the other end of the call. Which is transmitted back to the screen of [the] deaf individual's TDD.
</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//june95/94-2307.opa.html">FLORIDA MANUFACTURED HOUSING ASSOC. V. CISNEROS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida Manufactured Housing Assoc. v. (3) that the new wind standards are arbitrary and capricious for four different reasons. We hold that the manufacturers' arguments are without merit and deny their request that we set aside the regulations and that we remand to the agency for further proceedings.<p> <b>I. The purposes of the Manufactured Housing Act are to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="298"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53333A1C2A376D138825723B005F9EE5/$file/0415044.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was denied entry. The Kamehameha Schools were created through a charitable testamentary trust. Plaintiff argues that he was denied admission because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Factual Background Historical Context2 The islands of Hawaii are geographically isolated in the South Pacific Ocean and were originally settled sometime between 1 and 750 A.D. The immediate result of that first encounter was that Native Hawaiians were introduced to Western goods and Western diseases. The first treaty was signed in 1826. Additional treaties were signed in 1849. Was commercially desirable. Western economic domination of the Hawaiian Islands was followed by an interest in establishing political control. Was overthrown by a small group of nonHawaiians. Who were assisted in their efforts by the United States Minister. Laws were then enacted suppressing the Hawaiian culture and language and allowing for the displacement of Native Hawaiians from their lands. The Hawaiian language was banned as a medium of instruction in schools.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="297"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/12/031799P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Boisclair owns Penn Place and is a recipient of federal funding.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="297"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/04-7027a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The order provided: As to employees who are not subject to collective bargaining agreements. Upon the establishment by the receiver of published personnel policies for the governing of employees who are not subject to collective bargaining agreements. The personnel policies established by the receiver for employees who are neither at will employees. Shall provide that these employees shall not be terminated except for cause or misconduct or for nonperformance of duty or due to abolition of their position (as these terms are defined by the receiver in the published personnel policies). She was responsible for supervising the Office of Public Information. The consultants determined that her position was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/94-8733.man.html">UNITED STATES V. TOKARS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Mason was charged in Counts I. The trial was moved to Birmingham. Tokars was sentenced to concurrent life sentences on Counts I. Tokars was sentenced to 97 months' incarceration on each count to be served concurrently with each other and concurrently with the life sentences. Mason was sentenced to 200 months' incarceration on each count to be served concurrently. The case is best explained when divided into two sections: the narcotics money laundering enterprise and the murder of Sara Tokars (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994142.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Colton's primary argument on appeal is that because the government offered no evidence that he made any affirmative misrepresentations or breached any fiduciary. He cannot be held to have violated the federal bank fraud statute. So that the district court can vacate two of the bank fraud convictions because they were multiplicious. 000 and so his sentence should have been enhanced. Which was originally titled the Dennis A. He removed Ellis Koch as a trustee because Koch was known to be closely associated with him. For payment because Riggs believed that the property value was insufficient to cover the loan in light of certain environmental and financial problems jeopardizing the Wal Mart contract. Who was now practicing law in Annapolis. Laskin testified that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1012_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Primarily because we conclude that the Sexually Explicit Video Game Law is not sufficiently narrowly tailored. The Act is comprised primarily of the Violent Video Game Law (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/97-9307.man.html">LATHEM V. DEP'T OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERV. (4/14/1999, NO. 97-9307)<BR></A><BR>
A male employee whom she contended was similarly situated and had committed more egregious violations of DCYS's anti fraternization rule. Smith was a DCYS unit director and was Lathem's direct supervisor. Shirley McGarity reported to Nix that Smith was having an inappropriate relationship with her daughter. A DCYS client who was then fifteen years old.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0003p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal involves three individuals who were part of a conspiracy to distribute drugs in Columbus. Larry Latham and Benjamin Owusu were the primary participants in the conspiracy. Anthony Latham was involved in the chain of distribution. Anthony and Larry Latham were convicted of several federal drug violations.1 Anthony appeals: (1) the district court's refusal to grant him a mitigating role adjustment to his offense level under U.S. We DISMISS the appeal of this determination because the district court was aware of its authority to grant such a departure and thus its decision is nonreviewable. They were both arrested on September 5. By a New Jersey state trooper who discovered two kilograms of cocaine and two guns in the car in which they were traveling. Owusu and Larry were convicted of drug and weapons charges in New Jersey state court. Owusu and Larry were able to begin purchasing from Owusu's connection and distributing again in 1989. Anthony also was involved in the conspiracy. Anthony Peoples was Larry's right hand man in distributing drugs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/97-9307.man.html">LATHEM V. DEP'T OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERV. (4/14/1999, NO. 97-9307)<BR></A><BR>
A male employee whom she contended was similarly situated and had committed more egregious violations of DCYS's anti fraternization rule. Smith was a DCYS unit director and was Lathem's direct supervisor. Shirley McGarity reported to Nix that Smith was having an inappropriate relationship with her daughter. A DCYS client who was then fifteen years old.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1059p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the dispositive issue is whether. We will reverse and remand this action for yet another trial. Was approved by the Township and recorded in 1972. These improvements were substantially completed. This ordinance was amended on June 15. Township regulation of development and construction was expanded again on July 27. Included in this July ordinance was a Code Appeals Board to hear appeals from code violations. Until the industrial park was completed. Maintain that they were applying the local zoning and permitting regulations in a lawful and reasonable manner. An aspiring developer of a parcel of land was required first to obtain the Township's approval of the subdivision plan and then to acquire three permits. The first permit was a land alteration permit. All land alteration permits were approved by the Township Board of Supervisors. A developer was required to obtain a building permit by verifying that the building plans were in accord with applicable building codes. After the building was erected but before it could be occupied.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/94-8733.man.html">UNITED STATES V. TOKARS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Mason was charged in Counts I. The trial was moved to Birmingham. Tokars was sentenced to concurrent life sentences on Counts I. Tokars was sentenced to 97 months' incarceration on each count to be served concurrently with each other and concurrently with the life sentences. Mason was sentenced to 200 months' incarceration on each count to be served concurrently. The case is best explained when divided into two sections: the narcotics money laundering enterprise and the murder of Sara Tokars (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515633.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) was clearly in error in its finding regarding disparate impact. (3) considered expert testimony that should have been excluded under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 2 II For many years.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051163p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The facility is intended for longer stays. While they are there. Lakeside1 was negotiating to sell a resort property to Greenway. Drug and Plaintiffs/appellants are members of the Gawron family and the various entities they own or control. A mistrial was declared after Lakeside had presented most of its testimony. The District Court decided sua sponte to reconsider its Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 is called the Fair Housing Act. The other claim was under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 4 3 2 denial of the Board's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the FHAA claim. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is plenary. This issue was not briefed to us. So it is waived. The Fair Housing Act proscribes discrimination in the sale of a dwelling due to a handicap5 of those who are to reside in the dwelling after the sale. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1).6 A We note that at least two other courts have held that recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are handicapped.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/961179P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></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-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/05/011893P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending that the six houses that Atlantic provided were not well constructed and that Atlantic's failure to provide well constructed houses caused the failure of the entire project. It contends that the identity of Housing 21's investors was irrelevant and that providing such information to the jury was unfairly prejudicial. Housing 21 is a limited liability company that was formed by Robert Bjerke. Bjerke was familiar with Atlantic's houses. Atlantic was aware of the planned scale of the Riverview Estates project. Problems with the houses were apparent immediately. It was unable to sell them because of difficulties obtaining occupancy permits from Sioux City. Housing 21 was dissatisfied with the quality of the houses. Repair work on these houses was performed. It was determined that the city inspectors were not applying the UBC correctly. Some seven months after the first houses were delivered. Sales were not able to support debt service. The case was tried from October 10 to October 23. Walls that were not level or connected.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></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-2.gif" ALT="291"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942307.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Standards are arbitrary and capricious for four different reasons. We hold that the manufacturers' arguments are without merit and deny their request that we set aside the regulations and that we remand to the agency for further proceedings. The purposes of the Manufactured Housing Act are to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="291"></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-2.gif" ALT="291"></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-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0377p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Permit holders are generally required both to monitor their effluent discharges and to report these results. If monitoring and reporting requirements are imposed.
</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/981059.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Published opinion filed 2/19/99 is vacated. The County has refused to issue Warren a permit to erect her displays because she is not within the class of speakers identified in the County's regulation. The issue before this court is whether the County's regulation violates Warren's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Finding that the County's regulation is viewpoint neutral and reasonable. Who is a devout Christian but is not a member of an organized religion. Warren is not a resident of Fairfax County. Is a resident of Fairfax City.1 The Complex comprises three buildings in which over 2. The largest of the buildings is the Government Center building. Which is the site of county government offices. Is a separate and distinct jurisdiction from Fairfax County. The Memorandum declares that the County's policy is to encourage
</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/200304/01-5373a.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://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1034.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 8. O'Keefe and Packer & O'Keefe were on brief for appellant. Snow & Hahn was on brief for appellee. The R/V Endeavor is a vessel chartered by the National Science Foundation to URI's Graduate School of Oceanog raphy (GSO) for research purposes. Which are submerged in salt water during normal operation of the vessel. Is not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-41464.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. Moore and Hearn were both required to purchase primary mortgage insurance (
</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=93-1363.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Plaintiff is the general partner of fifteen limited partnerships that own and operate residential multi family housing projects throughout the United States. The projects are subsidized to varying degrees by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="289"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA1NDEtY3YgQW1lbmRlZC5wZGY=/05-0541-cv%20Amended.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Town of Wallkill appeal from the district court's denial of their motions for summary judgment on the ground that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on appellee Clubside. Holding that Clubside did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in the extension of the sewer district.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="286"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A1A29C00D2AE2A2288256C4B005437BF/$file/0115219.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Declaring that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="286"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411409.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs claim that all other developers that came before the Planning Commission had received approval and aver that Plaintiffs were treated differently by the City because of Mr. Filed a second amended complaint in which only the municipality of Rainbow City was named as a Defendant. The mayor and the Board of Adjustment were no longer parties to the litigation. 2 1 Defendant Rainbow City has appealed. Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to support an equal protection claim of similarly situated individuals who were treated differently. The district court should have granted the City's Rule 50 motion. The order of the district court is reversed. It is directed to enter judgment for Defendant. Campbell ran for the office of Mayor of Rainbow City and was defeated by the incumbent. Campbell was critical of Glidewell and her policies. Mayor Glidewell is a voting member of both the City Council and the Planning Commission and appoints six of the other nine members to the Planning Commission. Because we conclude that the district court should have granted the City's Rule 50 motion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="285"></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-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3665_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is so rundown that it is a public nuisance. New West is trying to litigate the tenants' rights rather than its own. The district court held that this defensive use is the exclusive remedy. That would be so if defendants were private actors. §1983 allows a suit against state actors when the objective is to obtain a declaration that a rule of federal law supersedes the rules that the state actors are implementing. Dismissing this claim was especially inappropriate. As the suit in which preemption would be offered as a defense is itself in federal court. The condemnation action was removed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and is pending in the Northern District of Illinois as No. 05 C 6746 before the same judge who resolved New West's suit. The condemnation action had been on the judge's docket for more than nine months before New West's suit was dismissed. That the condemnation action is pending in federal court suggests that it is imprudent to resolve the current suit until the condemnation proceeding has been finally resolved.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/06/992521P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The following facts are recited in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. Was planning to relocate to Kansas City and wished to rent a home. Badami that the 6008 North Michigan property had already been rented and was therefore unavailable. Flood informed her that nothing suitable for her family's size was available. 2 On June 25. The rental lists were provided to the public free of charge and were available at the real estate office. Badami that he had no properties available that were suitable for her family's size. Badami was unemployed. The Seminole property was offered for rent to the public at $1000 per month with a $600 security deposit. This was the last conversation between the Badamis and Mr. We find that sufficient evidence was presented at trial to merit submission of punitive damages to the jury.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/99-3387.htm">99-3387 -- KEYS YOUTH SERVICE INC. V. CITY OF OLATHE -- 05/11/2001<BR></A><BR>
Keys cross appeals from the court's bench trial ruling that Olathe's denial of the zoning permit was not based on Keys' handicap status under the FHA and that the permit denial did not violate state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-1053a.htm">01-1053 -- GONZALES V. CITY OF CASTLE ROCK -- 10/15/2002<BR></A><BR>
Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/00-1115.htm">00-1115 -- BISBEE V. MCCARTY -- 02/02/2001<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant John H. Bisbee interposed a counterclaim that was facially in excess of the jurisdictional limit of the county court. The case was thereafter transferred to Boulder County District Court. <p> McCarty moved to remand the case to county court. That his appeal was dismissed as untimely. Was subject to a heightened pleading standard applicable to conspiracy allegations involving state actors with immunity. It is our duty as a threshold matter in this case to determine whether . The losing party in a state court proceeding is generally
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1996/96a1470p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Questions we have not yet had occasion to address. The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part. Prepared a credit report regarding Philbin that erroneously stated he was subject to a tax lien in the amount of approximately $9500. Although there is no evidence of what inaccuracies it contained. Philbin apparently did not have any further complaints with TRW until approximately two and a half years later. Philbin applied for and was denied credit at Macy's department store. The reasons given were that his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/97-5121.ma3.html">MENDOZA V. BORDEN, INC. (11/16/1999, NO. 97-5121)<BR></A><BR>
Mendoza's employment ended because she was absent from work for three consecutive days without calling to explain her absence as required by Borden's written personnel policies.</P> <P> During most of her tenure with Borden. Mendoza's supervisor was Daniel Page. Page was the highest ranking Borden employee at the facility. The plant where the milk was processed constituted the majority of the facility. She testified that:</P> <P> the man was constantly watching me and following me around and looking me up and down. Whether it was face to face with me or as I would get up from a lunch table or from the picnic table to walk away and to go back to the office.</P> <P>Later. Mendoza further explained Page's conduct:</P> <P> He seemed to be wherever I was in the plant. He was at a lunch table in the lunch room. When I was face to face with him. Mendoza reiterated that Page's following and watching
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0457p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Blackwell Page 2 before the primary election immediately preceding the general election at which the candidacy is to be voted on by the voters. In years in which there is no presidential election. Primaries are held on the Tuesday of the first full week of May. Primaries are held on the Tuesday of the first full week of March. The Board rejected the petition because it was untimely filed. Mootness Defendants assert that the court of appeals should affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint because the controversy is now moot since the 2004 election has already taken place.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1374a.html">OMNIPOINT CORP V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1043.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Who might have otherwise benefitted from the judge's lenient views. That his decision to recuse himself was therefore in error. The defendant objects to the sentence imposed upon him by a different judge to whom his case was reassigned. If there is no reason to recuse. BACKGROUND</STRONG></P> <P> Eric Snyder was convicted after a jury trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After expressing concern during the sentencing hearing that the range was too harsh. A downward departure was justified because had Snyder been prosecuted and convicted under state law. He would have been sentenced to a far shorter prison term than that prescribed by the federal Sentencing Guidelines. Judge Harrington departed downward in order to bring Snyder's sentence closer to the sentence he would have received in state court. Holding that a disparity between federal and state sentences for the same offense is not a legitimate ground for departure. He granted Snyder a series of continuances while Snyder awaited a decision from the Boston Municipal Court regarding whether one of his prior convictions was unconstitutional. <STRONG> </STRONG>On December 9.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/97-5121.ma3.html">MENDOZA V. BORDEN, INC. (11/16/1999, NO. 97-5121)<BR></A><BR>
Mendoza's employment ended because she was absent from work for three consecutive days without calling to explain her absence as required by Borden's written personnel policies.</P> <P> During most of her tenure with Borden. Mendoza's supervisor was Daniel Page. Page was the highest ranking Borden employee at the facility. The plant where the milk was processed constituted the majority of the facility. She testified that:</P> <P> the man was constantly watching me and following me around and looking me up and down. Whether it was face to face with me or as I would get up from a lunch table or from the picnic table to walk away and to go back to the office.</P> <P>Later. Mendoza further explained Page's conduct:</P> <P> He seemed to be wherever I was in the plant. He was at a lunch table in the lunch room. When I was face to face with him. Mendoza reiterated that Page's following and watching
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1466.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Were on brief. The jury plausibly could have found that the appellant controlled a drug point in the Caracolas ward of Peñ. The government presented evidence that the drug point was part of a larger drug trafficking empire presided over by Miguel A. PREJUDICIAL VARIANCE</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb97/96-5049.wpd.html">BLACK V. BAKER OIL TOOLS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
Because we agree with the district court that no contract was ever created between Black and Baker Oil. Black was issued a copy of Baker Oil's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1970.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B4FE0138C2A6ADF188256E5A00707ABC/$file/9716778.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2001 is hereby amended as follows: On page 342 of the slip opinion filed January 10. They 3724 argue that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov94/94crochet.html">CROCHET V. SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE. PER CURIAM: I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TAMPA ("THA") IS A PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY (A "PHA") WHICH OWNS AND OPERATES FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS IN TAMPA. LULA WILLIAMS (THE "TENANTS") ARE TENANTS LIVING IN THA PROPERTIES. WHICH IS NOT A PARTY. IS AN ELECTRIC UTILITY SUPPLIER IN THE TAMPA AREA. AT THE PRESENT TIME. THA USES WHAT IS CALLED "RETAIL SERVICE."[1] UNDER RETAIL SERVICE. INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS AS CUSTOMERS OF TECO AND ARE INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THEIR MONTHLY TECO BILL. THA THEN PROVIDES THESE TENANTS WITH A UTILITIES REIMBURSEMENT. THE UTILITIES ALLOWANCE IS REFLECTED IN A RENT REDUCTION TO THE TENANT. ALTHOUGH IN CASES WHERE RENTS ARE EXTREMELY LOW. THA WILL ISSUE A CHECK TO TENANTS TO COVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UTILITIES ALLOWANCE AND THE RENT PAYMENT."> CROCHET V. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF TAMPA<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978189.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov94/94crochet.html">CROCHET V. SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE. PER CURIAM: I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TAMPA ("THA") IS A PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY (A "PHA") WHICH OWNS AND OPERATES FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS IN TAMPA. LULA WILLIAMS (THE "TENANTS") ARE TENANTS LIVING IN THA PROPERTIES. WHICH IS NOT A PARTY. IS AN ELECTRIC UTILITY SUPPLIER IN THE TAMPA AREA. AT THE PRESENT TIME. THA USES WHAT IS CALLED "RETAIL SERVICE."[1] UNDER RETAIL SERVICE. INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS AS CUSTOMERS OF TECO AND ARE INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THEIR MONTHLY TECO BILL. THA THEN PROVIDES THESE TENANTS WITH A UTILITIES REIMBURSEMENT. THE UTILITIES ALLOWANCE IS REFLECTED IN A RENT REDUCTION TO THE TENANT. ALTHOUGH IN CASES WHERE RENTS ARE EXTREMELY LOW. THA WILL ISSUE A CHECK TO TENANTS TO COVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UTILITIES ALLOWANCE AND THE RENT PAYMENT."> CROCHET V. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF TAMPA<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/012574P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The jury was given a single charge for both federal and state claims. Hill was arrested for public intoxication while walking home from a bar in Nevada. Her blood alcohol content was measured at .306 g/dL. Michael Miller and Jennifer Holmes were on duty at the jail when a police officer. Who is not a defendant in this action. Hill was uncooperative during the booking process. Written jail policy states that prisoners placed in the padded cell are not allowed to wear normal clothing but instead must wear a paper gown or nothing at all. Hill claims that she was not offered the gown and that Miller observed her remove her clothing. Hill was naked while in the padded cell. She was quiet. Miller and Holmes claim that they were concerned that Hill was going to hurt herself. The defendants claim that the decision was made for Hill's safety and that they decided to make the move at that time in part because the transfer required a greater number of guards than were on duty for each shift. The practice was to do so without regard to the prisoner's state of dress.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-3449.man.html">GRAHAM V. APFEL<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Graham v. She alleged chest pain and fatigue associated with microcytic hypochromic anemia and congenital heart block.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6201_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Huminski complains that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. The other is impairment of the ability of courts 1 Branzburg v. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access. Or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. That this individual right was not wellsettled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6201_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Huminski complains that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. The other is impairment of the ability of courts 1 Branzburg v. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access. Or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. That this individual right was not wellsettled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDEgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/02-6201%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Vermont officials therefore broadly prohibited Huminski's Huminski complains presence in and around certain state courthouses. that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. Confers on members of the public and press to attend and report on judicial proceedings and to speak out on public issues. other is impairment of the ability of courts effectively and efficiently to protect their personnel. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a We The presumption that he was entitled to access.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUwMDctY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5007-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case arose out of parallel investigations2 of Initial Public Offering (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUwMDctY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5007-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case arose out of parallel investigations2 of Initial Public Offering (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/450FD0F7049D4F3088256D410074C64B/$file/0116283.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background The historical background against which Coyote Valley and the State negotiated is important to an understanding of this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-3449.man.html">GRAHAM V. APFEL<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Graham v. She alleged chest pain and fatigue associated with microcytic hypochromic anemia and congenital heart block.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE2C676C3039B58488256E35007C2B7D/$file/0256506.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clarity is rare. As will appear. Once the draft RAP was finalized. 636.38 was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DB216EE8E3D5459888256A1B00609B74/$file/9956466.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We affirm because we conclude that the application of the doctrine of res judicata is not barred merely because they did not receive
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F912654A654769BD882570DF007BCE38/$file/0435187.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude that diversity jurisdiction is proper and that Kroske's age discrimination claim under the WLAD was not preempted. Is a federally chartered National Banking Association that was formed in accordance with the National Bank Act. The Bank is governed by a board of directors. Which is empowered by the Bank's bylaws to elect and discharge officers. Kroske was notified that her branch was not meeting the Bank's goals and quotas for business activity. Although Kroske contends that her branch was the smallest in the area with the fewest employees. That she was short staffed. The other branch managers in the region were in their twenties and thirties. While Kroske was fifty one years old. Kroske contended that she was replaced by an employee who was in his mid twenties and possessed less experience than Kroske. Filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Kroske's state discrimination claim was preempted by the National Bank Act. Contending that she was not an officer under § 24(Fifth) and.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1053.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The mandate is issued forthwith. Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EBD9A30E32ECC04988256E5A00707AB3/$file/9956466.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We affirm because we conclude that the application of the doctrine of res judicata is not barred merely because they did not receive
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DE6488C83F42EE9988256A1C005D455E/$file/9716778.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2001 is hereby amended as follows: On page 342 of the slip opinion filed January 10. They 3724 argue that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975121.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wilson was appointed after this case was orally argued en banc. Is an active member of the court at the time the case is decided. The opinion for the Court on her sexual harassment claim is joined in full by Chief Judge Anderson and Judges Edmondson. Mendoza's employment ended because she was absent from work for three consecutive days without calling to explain her absence as required by Borden's written personnel policies. Mendoza's supervisor was Daniel Page. Page was the highest ranking Borden employee at the facility. The plant where the milk was processed constituted the majority of the facility. She testified that: the man was constantly watching me and following me around and looking me up and down. Whether it was face to face with me or as I would get up from a lunch table or from the picnic table to walk away and to go back to the office. Mendoza further explained Page's conduct: He seemed to be wherever I was in the plant. He was at a lunch table in the lunch room. When I was face to face with him.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/84DE37D15EF98DC888256D8000518932/$file/0135666.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These new restrictions have been hotly contested in both state and federal courts. Although the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9F2D0E6B6C3941E788256E0100727307/$file/0216508.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Presiding *The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are California card clubs and charities that are prohibited under California state law from offering casinostyle gaming.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="273"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1081.html">CORTLAND LINE CO., INC V. THE ORVIS CO., INC<BR></A><BR>
Both Cortland and Orvis are in the fishing equipment business. Multiple spare reel spools with different fishing lines was an expensive proposition for most fishermen. Said first spool axle having a hollow aperture which is fitted over said first spool receiving shaft. Cartridge spool 26 is mounted between end plates 18a and 18d. Is a determination of fact. <U>See</U> <U>Southwall Techs. Is a matter of law. In dispute are the second end plate and the means for connecting.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="273"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/031964p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is whether a criminal sentence served in an alternative housing facility such as a halfway house can quali fy as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="273"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCE1972AF7F0010488256C9500638647/$file/0135766.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The answer to that question is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="273"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/021990P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was promoted to executive director of that organization in or around 1991. Allen was subpoenaed to testify against Loggains in a lawsuit involving allegations of fraud and wrongful eviction of a Housing Authority tenant. Loggains and Allen were speaking to one another only when absolutely necessary. Although the Board believed the termination was appropriate. They were reinstating Allen with back pay and benefits because they believed that the personnel policies governing the termination were outdated and in need of revision. Allen was fired from housing project about 2 weeks ago.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/179194155D71984A88256D8600795C31/$file/0215826o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
EPA ORDER The parties's joint motion to enter the attached stipulated consent decree is GRANTED. Submission of this case is deferred pending further order of this court. Concurring: Judge Kleinfeld's dissent to the proposed consent decree is well reasoned and quite thorough. The issues he raises are significant and should be considered seriously by the parties as they continue their negotiations. There is certainly no assurance how the court would rule on the questions of first impression presented here nor is there any reason to believe that the Court would approve a final resolution that appeared on its face to be unfair or collusive or that failed to consider input from interested parties. In the present case however the Court referred the parties to mediation and the parties have gone to great efforts to resolve the issues without further litigation. Whether they will ultimately succeed is uncertain for their challenge is not easy. In my view a delay to afford the parties more time to address their differences in this very unique situation will not lead to significant prejudice to either side and should not be viewed as a new procedure that the Court is inclined to follow in the future.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981059A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CORRECTION MADE ON COVER SHEET *Judge Ervin heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. Circuit Judge: Stretching in front of the Fairfax County Government Center Complex is a large grassy mall. Surrounding the mall is the street which leads to the Government Center Complex. The entire mall is outdoors. Fairfax County (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982618.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Baltimore City Police Department and its officers have disputed the legality of the Department's policy limiting enlistment in the Armed Forces reserves and National Guard. This case involves twenty eight officers who claim that they were denied access to the reserves in violation of the Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act. Permitted two of the officers whose claims are here on appeal Officers Kundrat and Helmick to join the reserves. The settlement also prompted the Department to establish a policy under which a maximum of 100 Department employees were permitted to be members of the reserves at any given time. Amended by 38 U.S.C.§ 4301(b)(3) (1994).1 We held 1 VRRA was renumbered and renamed in 1992. We follow the practice of the parties and the district court of referring to the statute as it was titled and codified at the initiation of this action. 3 that the Department's 100 person policy
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july97/94-3344.wpd.html">TYLER V. CITY OF MANHATTAN<BR></A><BR>
The district court ruled that compensatory damages for mental and emotional injury were not available under the ADA absent intentional discrimination. The district court further concluded that Tyler had not claimed he was subjected to intentional discrimination. No cause exists for this court to resolve an issue raised not by Tyler but by the United States as amicus: whether compensatory damages are recoverable for unintentional violations of the ADA. Is disabled within the meaning of the ADA.(2) He is partially paralyzed and essentially unable to read. Sitting by designation. (1) The City suggests that the district court's judgment was not a final. Appealable judgment because it ordered only injunctive relief and the district court necessarily retains jurisdiction over the parties until they have complied with the terms of the injunction. An order or judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it resolves all substantive issues on the merits and effectively ends the litigation. There was thus a final. Tyler was free to appeal from anything in that judgment or the court's prior.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1073.html">SARACO V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2167.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Cover page: Change
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1602.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. and Smith & Nevares were on brief for appellant Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Geoffrey Woods and Woods & Woods were on brief for appellee/cross appellant Futura Development of Puerto Rico. Jr.was on brief for defendants appellees. Futura brought this suit seeking a determination that CDC was an alter ego of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth was liable for the judgment. Futura was awarded summary judgment. All of which were dismissed by the district court sua sponte. The jury in that case rejected CDC's cross claims alleging that the Ciudad Cristiana property was contaminated with mercury. Jurisdiction in that case was premised entirely upon diversity. This court is faced with the current dispute over satisfaction of that judgment. CDC is a public corporation that was created by the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly in order to develop housing cooperatives across Puerto Rico. A majority of the CDC's budget each year is provided by the Commonwealth. Futura argues that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is liable for the original judgment because it was a de facto party to the original litigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1742A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee. An investigation into suspected drug distribution was conducted within the Los Laureles Housing Project (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210218.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a code enforcement officer condemns an apartment complex and evicts the tenants without providing the tenants with contemporaneous notice of their right to appeal the condemnation decision. We must then determine whether the tenants' right to contemporaneous notice was established with such clarity at the time of eviction in this case that the chief of the City of Orlando's Code Enforcement Bureau is not entitled to qualified immunity. Threatened to declare the building unfit for human occupancy if the Our recitation of the facts is based primarily on the admitted facts contained in the parties' joint pretrial statement. To the extent that material facts are in dispute. As we must when the issue of qualified immunity is raised in a summary judgment motion. 92526 n.3 (11th Cir. 2000). 2 1 violations were not corrected.2 The owner was informed that the City of Orlando Code Enforcement Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516756.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sr. was indicted by a grand jury in the Southern District of Georgia for conspiracy. Walker is a former Georgia state legislator. He was charged along with three corporate defendants: The Augusta Focus. A holding company that owns other companies and is owned by Walker (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043707p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Order and Opinion of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was initially made a party to this action but was subsequently removed as a party. 2 1 granting the Township's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. Which is located in Allegheny County. The subject property was located in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-2345_054.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Greg Davis and six other co conspirators were charged in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Hankton was subsequently sentenced to a term of 300 months in prison. While Davis was sentenced to 210 months. Both men challenge the district court's application of the guidelines to their sentences and claim that they are entitled to be re sentenced in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Clarence Hankton and Gregory Davis were prominent members of the MCs. The gang's various criminal undertakings were coordinated 2 Hankton and Davis were also charged with the knowing and intentional use of a communication facility (i.e. Hankton was charged with four separate counts of distribution of cocaine base. Davis was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Were not limited to. Is produced by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011833.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Against Storage Technology Corporation (StorageTek) for gender based employment discrimination after she was demoted. Adrienne Corti was hired by StorageTek as a Financial Services Manager (FSM) in its Silver Spring. StorageTek is a Colorado based company that manufactures. Worked towards a quota that was based in part on sales revenue. She met her quota and was ranked the number one FSM in the Mid Atlantic region.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/41EE943C82ABBBA688256DA2005A8DC9/$file/0215826o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended. The parties were referred to the Ninth Circuit Mediation Program to explore a settlement. The parties were referred to the Ninth Circuit Mediation Program to explore a settlement. The parties's joint motion to enter the attached stipulated consent decree is GRANTED. Submission of this case is deferred pending further order of this court. Concurring: Judge Kleinfeld's dissent to the proposed consent decree is well reasoned and quite thorough. The issues he raises are significant and should be considered seriously by the parties as they continue their negotiations. There is certainly no assurance how the court would rule on the questions of first impression presented here nor is there any reason to believe that the Court would approve a final resolution that appeared on its face to be unfair or collusive or that failed to consider input from interested parties. EPA 13611 In the present case however the Court referred the parties to mediation and the parties have gone to great efforts to resolve the issues without further litigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/954091P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That he was a tenant in an apartment building defendants owned. He informed defendants he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054997p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tomko was also ordered to undergo twenty2 eight days of in house treatment for alcohol abuse. This sentence is unreasonable in light of the circumstances of this case and the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It was therefore an abuse of discretion for the District Court to impose it and we will vacate the judgment and remand for resentencing. Inc. is classified as a flow through
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA1NDEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0541-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Town of Wallkill appeal from the district court's denial of their motions for summary judgment on the ground that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on appellee Clubside. Holding that Clubside did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in the extension of the sewer district.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043653p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge This is an insurance coverage dispute arising out of a lightning strike and fire that damaged Keil Hall on the campus of Mercersburg Academy. Is a private secondary and college preparatory boarding school located in Mercersburg. Keil Hall is a building located on the Mercersburg campus that was constructed over a century ago. The fourth floor was designed and constructed for dormitory use as well. That floor was used as attic and storage space. Was cordoned off from students.1 The chimney of Keil Hall was struck by lightning on June 13. While the dormitory rooms on the fourth floor were unoccupied at the time of the fire due to declining enrollment. (2) additional costs to repair the building that were made necessary to bring the building in compliance with applicable laws and various building codes. ] . . . we will pay for loss to the undamaged portion of the building caused by enforcement of any ordinance or law that: (a) requires demolition of parts of the same property not damaged by a Covered Cause of Loss.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="269"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/02-7055b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="267"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411063.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: At issue in this class action lawsuit is whether the City of Thomasville School District (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="267"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/016603.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Veney claims that defendants denied his requests to move from his single occupancy cell into a doubleoccupancy cell because he is a homosexual male. Because we agree with the district court that even if all of Veney's allegations were true. After several requests to switch into a double occupancy cell were denied. Were discriminating against him because he is a homosexual male. White ruled that Veney was not being discriminated against. Veney claims that he is being treated differently from similarly situated heterosexual males and homosexual females. Are housed in double occupancy cells at Riverside. The district court is required to review any
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0334a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a consolidated case. The Heiser Plaintiffs are individuals who live or have lived in or near Oak Ridge. Who allegedly have cancer or have an increased risk of acquiring cancer or other diseases. The Ball Plaintiffs are African Americans who live or have lived in a community known as Scarboro in Oak Ridge. Plaintiffs claim that they have been harmed through exposure to radioactive and other toxic substances over the period when nuclear weapons were manufactured in Oak Ridge. Defendants are private contractors of the United States government that operate or have operated nuclear weapons manufacturing and research facilities in the Oak Ridge Reservation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/983641.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to construe 18 U.S.C.S 666. We conclude that the District Court erred in interpreting the statute in this respect and will therefore remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We will vacate this aspect of the sentencing order and direct the District Court on remand to award the additional one point reduction if it determines that Zwick timely provided complete information to the government or timely notified the government of his intent to plead guilty to enable the government and court to conserve their resources.1 I. Zwick was an elected member of the Ross Township Board of Commissioners. Which would have preserved Zwick's legal challenge to the application of S 666 when there is no connection between a defendant's conduct and federal funds or programming. Zwick was willing to plead guilty to the bank fraud and mail fraud counts. Further plea negotiations were derailed. So the case was tried to a jury. Zwick was convicted on counts one. We will review the relevant facts adduced at trial regarding the alleged bribes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0229p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a consolidated case. The Heiser Plaintiffs are individuals who live or have lived in or near Oak Ridge. Who allegedly have cancer or have an increased risk of acquiring cancer or other diseases. The Ball Plaintiffs are African Americans who live or have lived in a community known as Scarboro in Oak Ridge. Plaintiffs claim that they have been harmed through exposure to radioactive and other toxic substances over the period when nuclear weapons were manufactured in Oak Ridge. Defendants are private contractors of the United States government that operate or have operated nuclear weapons manufacturing and research facilities in the Oak Ridge Reservation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></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-2.gif" ALT="264"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3578_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is responsible for the fees. The CHA urges us to find that even if plaintiffs are entitled to some fees. We conclude that even if the link between these proceedings and earlier parts of the case is broken. All that is necessary is a summary of the history of the case. Claiming that its policies with respect to the selection of sites for public housing and for assignment of tenants were racially discriminatory. The district court entered a remedial decree that was designed to ban racially discriminatory site selection and tenant assignment policies and to undo the harm that had already occurred. Central to the remedial decree was the requirement that for every unit built in an area where the population was more than 30% non white (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="264"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/860159561E830C2588256EAC00570CA0/$file/9955265.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming he was denied equal protection because. He was not allowed to resume his prison job until after similarly situated inmates of other races. 7294 WALKER v. Jamel Walker is serving a life sentence in the custody of the California Department of Corrections. The prison is made up of four separate facilities or yards A. Walker is housed in Facility A. Walker was assigned to be a clerk in the Facility A Law Library. He was initially paid at an hourly rate of nineteen cents. He now earns the maximum rate of thirty two cents and is Lead Law Library Clerk. Walker asserts that he is not and never has been a gang member. Several Hispanic and black inmates were involved in a fight. As a result of which the prison was placed on lockdown. All prisoners were restricted to their cells and not permitted to exercise. Only Hispanic and black inmates were also excluded from the critical workers list a category of workers approved to continue attending their job assignments despite the lockdown. Walker was not permitted to return to his library assignment until June 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="264"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1142a.html">JONES JOSEPH L. REV V. FRS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="263"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-2000.htm">98-2000 -- WINTERS V. TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE CO. -- 09/09/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Transamerica Insurance Company (Transamerica). After the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 was enacted. He also made statements indicating a preference for tenants who were not Hispanic or Jewish. <p> The Mercers and the Andersons filed complaints with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Have filed bankruptcy. Plaintiff James Burke is the Chapter 7 trustee in the bankruptcy proceeding. <p> On October 16. Because they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their claims that the insurer breached the contract. Summary judgment is proper when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="262"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF998042C56F943C88256ED7004B8690/$file/0217346.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no triable issue of material fact that a constitutional violation had been committed. Because Squaw Valley presented evidence that Singer may have been motivated by personal animus. The resort is naturally traversed by the South Fork of Squaw Creek (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="259"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972501.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Which is scheduled to be demolished. (ARC) 2 sued for a declaration that ARC was the entity entitled to receive an offer of first refusal to purchase the Downtown Homes. ARHA and SMHTC are appealing from the district court's grant of ARC's motion for summary judgment. I The housing project at issue in this case is a complex called the Samuel Madden Homes. The HA is required. To consult with the tenants and resident councils that will be affected by the demolition or disposition. If the affected housing project does not have an existing resident council. Resident councils2 are organizations comprised of the residents of public housing projects. Are intended to work with the local HA to help create a positive living environment for public housing resi 1 The other portion of the Samuel Madden Homes. Which is not set for demolition and is not at issue in this case. Consists of sixty six units some three blocks from the Downtown Homes and is known as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="259"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2892.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The CHA notified its employees that it was closing the department. Rejecting its argument that the CHA was not a covered employer for purposes of the Act. Like the CHA is subject to the WARN Act.2 The CHA also 1 Plaintiffs represent a class of
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1121.html">WENGER MANUFACTURING, INC. V. COATING MACHINERY SYSTEMS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Scott R. With him on the brief was <u>Jeffer<a NAME=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="257"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/01-3398.htm">01-3398 -- JOHNSON V. UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY/KANSAS CITY -- 06/07/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/93-4063.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. BROWN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This appeal is one by four defendants. Who were convicted of defrauding and conspiring to defraud home buyers throughout the 1980's. Their guilt was not proved: insufficient evidence was presented that a scheme reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension was devised. GDC was selling some of its homes at significantly higher prices than independently built homes within the same neighborhoods.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/93-4063.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. BROWN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This appeal is one by four defendants. Who were convicted of defrauding and conspiring to defraud home buyers throughout the 1980's. Their guilt was not proved: insufficient evidence was presented that a scheme reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension was devised. GDC was selling some of its homes at significantly higher prices than independently built homes within the same neighborhoods.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/99-2344.htm">99-2344 -- SOUTHWEST AIR AMBULANCE INC. V. CITY OF LAS CRUCES -- 10/16/2001<BR></A><BR>
John Richardson is the president of Southwest. Which is owned and operated by the City of Las Cruces (the City). <p> On June 1. Are prohibited from offering any commercial service to the public upon or within the boundaries of the Airport. <p> <u>Id.</u> at
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5104.html">CIENEGA GARDENS 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-2.gif" ALT="252"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1996/96a1469p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issues relating to the secretary are not involved on this appeal and the secretary is no longer a party to the case. This appeal raises the question of whether the Housing Authority is barred from seeking Taylor's eviction by reason of his punishment for the possession of the drug paraphernalia in the municipal court by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Taylor is both hearing and speech impaired and his sole income is a monthly social security disability payment of $497. He cannot afford to pay market rent and if evicted from the Bayonne apartment will have no place to live and will end up on the streets homeless. They agree that it was similar to that imposed on the second conviction. New Jersey is quite protective of tenants in residential units and has adopted an Anti Eviction Act. One such circumstance is where the tenant has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to an offense under the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1987. Involving possession of drug paraphernalia
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="250"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTIwODJfc28ucGRm/04-2082_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="250"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Three public interest groups whose members include gay and lesbian citizens of Nebraska commenced this action against the Governor and the Attorney General in their official capacities seeking an order declaring that § 29 violates the Equal Protection Clause and is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The State renews its contentions that Appellees lack standing to raise these constitutional claims and that the claims are not ripe for review. The State argues that Appellees lack standing their members have suffered no injury in fact because marriage and domestic partnership licenses are not available to same sex couples in Nebraska. Appellees' members can obtain Amicus briefs supporting the State were submitted by certain members of the Nebraska Legislature. Amicus briefs supporting Appellees were submitted by the National Association of Social Workers and its Nebraska Chapter.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314745.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Reynolds observed Draper's truck traveling northbound on I 85 and stopped the truck allegedly because its tag light was not appropriately illuminated under Georgia law. As was his practice in all roadside stops. The engine was running. The passenger window was closed. The cab was illuminated briefly by an interior light but then became dark. Draper observed Reynolds at the passenger side and believed that 2 Reynolds was performing an inspection of the vehicle. We accept Draper's version of what happened.1 Draper was blinded by the flashlight the second time Reynolds shined it in the cab. Reynolds contends that he quickly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D88A482DA6E2A88588256B53000019E5/$file/0035553.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Smith is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). **John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. His petition was filed after the district court granted the parties' joint motion for dismissal of Perez Arellano's action. He asserts that attorney's fees are warranted because the INS' position was not substantially justified. Finding that the INS' position was substantially justified. On the ground that Perez Arellano was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-6213.opa.html">ONISHEA V. HOPPER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Onishea v. Which consists of Alabama inmates who are HIV positive (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1244.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Disabilities Rights Center were on brief. Was on brief. The Decree confirmed Adams' entitlement to a FAPE and obligated the school district in which the prison was located to develop an individualized education program (IEP) for each year of a two year span (apparently compensating for a period during which Adams had not received a FAPE). Adams was classified by correctional authorities as a moderately high risk (C 4) inmate and housed accordingly. Inmates housed in the SHU are subject to severe constraints on movement (e.g. They are permitted neither to interact with convicts in other classifications nor to leave the SHU except for medical emergencies and other exigencies). C 5 inmates are handcuffed. The essence of his complaint was that the security constraints which impeded delivery of the requisite educational services to inmates in the SHU did not amount to a valid justification for shirking responsibilities imposed under the IDEA. An administrative hearing was held. While the appeal was pending. Was to receive two additional years of compensatory education.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/24C8DC7D0EEF099088256B66007D33AE/$file/0035553.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Smith is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). **John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. Is amended as follows: 2770 1) In the second sentence of the third paragraph of the Discussion section. Because no settlement agreement is involved in this case. His petition was filed after the district court granted the parties' joint motion for dismissal of Perez Arellano's action. He asserts that attorney's fees are warranted because 2771 the INS' position was not substantially justified. Finding that the INS' position was substantially justified. On the ground that Perez Arellano was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610353.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The SEC asserted that these interests were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: At issue today is the constitutionality of several zoning and public nudity ordinances adopted by the City of Daytona Beach (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1268.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Manion III was on brief. Banis were on brief. I. There is little dispute about the facts which emerged from the trial. While it is unclear whether Chesterton is asserting that the district court's factual conclusions are not supported by the evidence. We state the facts as the court could have found them. Is currently owned and operated by the descendants of the Company's founder. Is currently the Company's largest shareholder. Which are distributed throughout the world. The Board perceived Subchapter S status as advantageous to the Company because it allows shareholders in a small business corporation to avoid the double taxation of income to which shareholders in a 3 3 Subchapter C corporation are subject. The income of a Subchapter C corporation is taxed first at the corporate level when the company earns income. Is not taxed at the corporate level. A corporation must be a domestic corporation which does not: (1) have more than seventy five shareholders. (2) have a corporation or other non individual as a shareholder.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2209.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Hawkes & Mehnert was on brief for appellant. P.A. was on brief for appellee. Before us is Jacques' appeal of the decision and judgment below. BACKGROUND Jacques argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict and that the district court therefore should have granted his motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. Reversal of the denial of the motion is warranted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1224.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Michael L. 914 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-12164.opn.html">LOGGERHEAD TURTLE V. COUNTY COUNCIL (9/30/2002, NO. 01-12164)<BR></A><BR>
Filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that the County was taking endangered sea turtles in violation of the ESA. (2) the County's ordinance restricting artificial beachfront lighting was ineffective in preventing takes. Was reasonably likely to result in future takes of sea turtles. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1093.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Roney & Labinger was on brief. Were on brief for U.S. A nurse employed by MHRH concluded that plaintiff was morbidly obese1 but found no 1The medical profession considers a person morbidly obese if she weighs either more than twice her optimal weight or more than 100 pounds over her optimal weight. Since all parties proclaim that the elements and standards of a handicap discrimination claim are no different for present purposes under Rhode Island law than under federal law. The appeal turns on whether there was sufficient evidence to permit a verdict in plaintiff's favor. Appellate review is plenary. Was qualified to perform the duties of the IA MR position. Is such that reasonable minds could not help but reach an outcome at odds with the verdict. A trial court's denial of such a motion is examined through a somewhat different glass. We are firm adherents to the principle
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Sought to recover in quantum meruit the amount over and above the original contract price that it was required to pay in order to complete the project after the contractor defaulted. United Pacific alleged that it was entitled to quantum meruit recovery because the contract at issue was illegal and therefore void ab initio. The contract was illegal because it was entered into in violation of two statutes. We cite to the versions of sections 2805 and 2811 that were in effect in 1995 when the contract at issue was formed. 2
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-7053.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Michael J. Of counsel was Martin J. Concluded that § 4.15 was not before the Veterans Court on appeal. Holding that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043950p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because their complaint alleges concrete and particularized injuries that are fairly traceable to Ford's behavior and redressable in court. In an unpublished opinion we will call Danvers II. The District Court held that eight of the nine named Plaintiffs
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1339.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1991 is amended as follows: On page 23. Insert
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054661p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss Fasano's Complaint. Federal Reserve Banks Because the nature of Federal Reserve Banks is at issue in this case. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0101p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As the issues raised in this appeal are matters of first impression among the courts of appeals.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1168.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Padellaro</SPAN> were on brief. To order the district court to decide or otherwise dispose of a pretrial petition for habeas corpus relief which the Commonwealth claims is interfering with state criminal proceedings. Although this power is used exceedingly sparingly. Leonora Ellis<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-6213.opa.html">ONISHEA V. HOPPER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Onishea v. Which consists of Alabama inmates who are HIV positive (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8024.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Miki Ann DiMarco lived her life as a woman even though she was anatomically male. It was only during a routine prison intake examination that prison officials learned DiMarco was a hermaphrodite Because the officials believed that she presented a safety risk. DiMarco was placed in administrative segregation apart from the rest of the prison population. Her confinement was reviewed every ninety days. The issue is whether Wyoming had a constitutional duty to provide her an opportunity to challenge the placement and conditions of confinement under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Because we conclude DiMarco does not have a liberty interest in her placement and the conditions of confinement. DiMarco pleaded guilty to check fraud in Wyoming and was placed on probation. She was temporarily committed to a county jail in Laramie. Where she was housed with the general female population. Officials realized she was anatomically male. Where higher risk inmates are housed. New prisoners are routinely housed separately from the general prison population for about one month in Pod 2 while prison officials determine appropriate housing assignments.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0488n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Manuel was promoted to staff administrator. Manuel complained to several Honda vice presidents that Honda was discriminating against blacks in promotions by downgrading their evaluations. Manuel transferred to an associate relations position at the East Liberty Plant but was then transferred to an administration position at the Marysville Plant. Manuel was given a performance rating of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0717p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At ultimate issue is the defendant employers' failure to hire the employees engaged at the site from the plaintiff union's hiring hall. The parties have been ceaselessly embroiled in this matter for over eight years. During this time they have appeared before the district court thrice and an arbitrator once. They are now before this Court for the third time. Given what appears to us to be the relatively modest stakes and the fact that the primary point of contention in the case will probably never recur. [fn2] it is unfortunate that their litigation strategies have prevented them from settling. We can only hope that the opinion that follows will edge them toward a swift resolution of their remaining disputes instead of propelling them back to the arbitrator for another round of pugnacious battle. One we will answer in the affirmative. Is whether the district court erred in not applying retrospectively the National Labor Relation Board's decision in John Deklewa & Sons. A host of other questions is also before us.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CE34E4CABED63FD88256D6C0059D169/$file/9855551.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dissent by Judge Trott *Judge Tashima was randomly selected to replace Judge Bright. Who was a member of the original three judge panel. The only remaining issue on remand is whether Chevron has met the requirements for assertion of the direct threat defense. An examination by Chevron's physician revealed that Echazabal's liver was releasing higher than normal levels of enzymes. Echazabal consulted with his own doctors and was eventually diagnosed with asymptomatic. Informing him that Chevron was withdrawing the job offer based on its determination that Echazabal's liver would be damaged and his health at risk if he worked at the coker unit. It is not surprising that Echazabal 10016 withdrew its job offer. He was no longer able to pay for medical services and was unable to continue with the medical group he had been seeing for his liver condition. ANALYSIS An employer can defend against a disability discrimination claim under the ADA by relying on a qualification standard that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1804p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue is rendered complex by an interrelated maze of corporations and partnerships devised by the limited partners and the general partner in their efforts to develop two separate real estate projects. Was aborted shortly after conception. The defendants appellants are limited partners of Red Hawk North Associates. G&A Development Corporation (G&A) is the general partner of Red Hawk. Red Hawk and Cedar Ridge are both general partners of Chestnut Woods. To have it furnish the labor. The court entered a default judgment which was not satisfied in whole or part. 1993 that Red Hawk was worthless. Henkels' counsel also had been advised that G&A was unable to pay the judgment out of its assets. Sixteen of the partners are parties to this appeal. 000 during the period that Cedar Ridge was obligated under its contract with Henkels to pay Henkels $300. Henkels alleged that the capital distributions were made in violation of the Red Hawk limited partnership agreement and S 42:2A 46(b) of the New Jersey Uniform Limited Partnership Law of 1976 (New Jersey ULPL). 3 After the district court denied both Henkels's and the Partners' motions for summary judgment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5121.html">BRICKWOOD CONTRACTORS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Mso bidi font family:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/983543.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0973p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a trade dress infringement action in which plaintiff Versa Products Company. Which Versa maintains copies the product configuration of the B 316.[fn1] The action was brought under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. That there was a likelihood of confusion of the sources of Bifold's Domino Junior and Versa's B 316 valves. In connection with which we are called upon to determine whether the jurisprudence that lowers the standard to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-8005.htm">02-8005 -- WATSON V. STATE OF WYOMING -- 12/15/2003<BR></A><BR>
Watson was charged with the first degree murder of an inmate in the Wyoming State Penitentiary. Then I [Watson] have the right to withdraw the plea of guilty and reinstate my prior plea and stand trial on the charge against me.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-3158.htm">03-3158 -- SCHERER V. U.S. -- 02/05/2004<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Thomas E. The district court determined that the VA's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-5085a.pdf">O:\2005-2006 TERM\12-06-05 SITTING\BROUDY V. MATHER, 05-5085\BROUDY -- OPINION FINAL.WPD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Douglas J. With him on the brief were Peter D. Hundreds of thousands of members of the United States armed forces were allegedly exposed to dangerous levels of atomic radiation: about 220. This case is not about whether they should have received Government compensation for their sicknesses. It is about whether Government officials denied them a constitutional right of meaningful access to administrative proceedings before the Department of Veterans Affairs (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-12164.opn.html">LOGGERHEAD TURTLE V. COUNTY COUNCIL (9/30/2002, NO. 01-12164)<BR></A><BR>
Filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that the County was taking endangered sea turtles in violation of the ESA. (2) the County's ordinance restricting artificial beachfront lighting was ineffective in preventing takes. Was reasonably likely to result in future takes of sea turtles. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/03-1308a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Perry M. Hahn were on the brief for amicus curiae Airports Council International North America in support of petitioner. Richard Baron was on the brief for amicus curiae Quiet Technologies. Weigel were on the brief for amici curiae City of Naples and Collier County in support of petitioner. 2 John A. With him on the brief was Ellen J. Zimmerman were on the brief of amici curiae Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Circuit Judge: This is a petition for judicial review of an order of the Associate Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration the FAA disqualifying the City of Naples Airport Authority from receiving grants under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. The City of Naples is a southern Florida community. The Naples airport is located within the city's boundaries. No tax or other fiscal revenues are earmarked for the airport. The city is responsible for zoning in the areas surrounding the airport within its municipal boundary. The county is responsible for zoning all other property immediately adjacent to the airport.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/992334P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. This is the second appeal in the Klan's effort to participate in the Adopt AHighway program. We emphasized that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52C7E06D0044D65488256D24007F5BE8/$file/9956570.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a). Ingle was required to sign an arbitration agreement for Circuit City to consider her employment application. The district court entered an order denying the motion on the ground that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable under Duffield v. Arguing primarily that its arbitration agreement is enforceable under Duffield2 and California contract law. 788 n.10 (9th Cir. 2002) (declining to rule on district court's alternative conclusion that arbitration agreement was invalid under Duffield because the court's conclusion under state contract law disposed of the appeal). 2 INGLE v. Because the 1998 Rules and Procedures were in effect at the time Ingle's civil rights claims arose. We examine these rules in analyzing whether this arbitration agreement is enforceable. 782 (9th Cir. 2002). [1] It is a settled principle of law that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/07/001015P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This matter was previously heard and decided by a three judge panel. Sergeant Moran was on duty at a police substation. With him were emergency medical technicians Mark Rauss and Larry Campbell. Bell was brought from the house in handcuffs. He entered the house and encountered Bell as he was being removed from the premises. Rauss and Campbell treated Bell from the moment he was brought outside until the time he was transported from the scene. There is substantial evidence that throughout this course of events. Louis Police Department are handled by the Internal Affairs Division (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972726.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Seeking damages on several theories only two of which are at issue in this appeal: (1) a common law claim for alleged bad faith settlement practices. The details and sequence of which are significant to the resolution of the appeal. It is necessary to recount the somewhat tortuous series of events following the tragedy. 2 A. Lori Stokely Hall were passengers in the Nickleson vehicle at the time of the collision. Jr. and his son were killed in the accident. State Auto was the liability insurance carrier for both Charles W. The Wilt policy insured four vehicles and the total policy premium was reduced by virtue of a multi car discount. Underinsured Motorists Coverage is the most we will pay regardless of the number of ... vehicles or premiums shown in the Schedule or in the Declarations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1557.html">VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGIES V. TITAN WHEEL<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/031466P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding Peebles' continuing injuries were non occupational. Northcross then placed Peebles on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/952012P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nash Finch argues the district court erred in holding (1) Kim's claim that he was unlawfully denied a promotion from leadman to foreman in November 1990 was actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (2) there was sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination. (3) there was sufficient evidence of retaliation. (4) there was sufficient evidence of malice or reckless indifference to support punitive damages. (5) the jury verdict awarding damages for lost wages and compensatory damages was supported by sufficient evidence or. Was not excessive. BACKGROUND FACTS Nash Finch is a wholesale and retail food distributor. During the period of time at issue Bill Mund was the warehouse superintendent. Transportation are each supervised by a salaried
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200112164.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that the County was taking endangered sea turtles in violation of the ESA. (2) the County's ordinance restricting artificial beachfront lighting was ineffective in preventing takes. Was reasonably likely to result in future takes of sea turtles. That the County was not responsible for takes by its municipalities. The district court found that beach driving was reasonably likely to result in future taking of sea turtles. The district court held that both types of takes were covered by the ITP. Arguing that their suit was the catalyst for improved protection of sea turtles. Arguing that the Turtles' suit did not have a catalytic effect on the County's ITP application.2 With respect to the beach lighting claim. That enactment of County Ordinances 99 12 and 99 13 was Although the ITP permitted incidental takes. Presumably because the ITP carefully delimited the scope of permissible takes and set forth fifteen categories of measures the County was required to undertake to minimize and mitigate such takes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CECC4783135B2B0588256BFF0057868F/$file/0155985.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court denied Countrywide's petition on the grounds that Countrywide's arbitration agreement is unenforceable based on the doctrine of unconscionability and that Ferguson cannot be compelled to arbitrate her Title VII employment discrimination claims. We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). Affirm on the ground that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. When Ferguson was hired she was required to sign Countrywide's Conditions of Employment. The arbitration agreement then outlines which claims are covered by the agreement1 and which claims are not covered.2 1 Agreement to Arbitrate. Are not limited to. Claims for discrimination or harassment on bases which include but are not limited to race. Claims resulting from the default of any obligation of the Company or the Employee under a mortgage loan which was granted and/or serviced by the Company. Or (2) is underwritten by a commercial insurer which decides claims.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004094.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions. That certain evidence was improperly admitted against them. They each were charged with three counts of mail fraud. Curry Robinson was charged with six counts of money laundering. The defendants stated in letters to investors that Case Oil was an international business that had liquid assets of more than $40 million and contracts in excess of $250 million.2 They also claimed that Case Oil had contracts with several countries to construct chemical plants. The facts are presented in the light most favorable to the Government. 2 The letters written to prospective investors were signed on different occasions in each defendant's name. Included various representations such as the following: Case Oil Corporation is a Corporation in good standing with the State of Virginia and is licensed to do business both. Case is currently under contract by several countries to construct Urea and petro chemical plants. We are also suppliers of jet fuel oil to several major air lines.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="245"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2675.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Norton</SPAN> were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees Mel Martinez. Labinger</SPAN> were on brief for Develco Singles Apartments Associates. Is a non profit organization operating in Woonsocket. Defendants appellees in this case are the Develcos (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-6198.opa.html">REDWING CARRIERS, INC. V. SARALAND APTS.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Redwing Carriers. Redwing sued the Appellees claiming they are liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. (Saraland) Site is a 5.1 acre parcel of land located within the southern Alabama community of Saraland. Redwing was in the business of hauling materials used in construction and other industries. Trucks were cleaned out. The ground at the Site became contaminated with hazardous chemicals which have combined to form a black. Bolton were partners in Saraland Limited. Meador completed construction of the Saraland Apartments complex in May 1974.<p> Construction of the complex was subsidized by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide low income housing. Marcrum denies Redwing's claim that the company is the daily. The complex's parking lot was repaved. Coit and Roar are responsible for managing the business of the Partnership. Meador were liable under
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/98-5222.htm">98-5222 -- OXY USA, INC. V. BABBITT -- 10/10/2001<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <strong><hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-6198.opa.html">REDWING CARRIERS, INC. V. SARALAND APTS.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Redwing Carriers. Redwing sued the Appellees claiming they are liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. (Saraland) Site is a 5.1 acre parcel of land located within the southern Alabama community of Saraland. Redwing was in the business of hauling materials used in construction and other industries. Trucks were cleaned out. The ground at the Site became contaminated with hazardous chemicals which have combined to form a black. Bolton were partners in Saraland Limited. Meador completed construction of the Saraland Apartments complex in May 1974.<p> Construction of the complex was subsidized by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide low income housing. Marcrum denies Redwing's claim that the company is the daily. The complex's parking lot was repaved. Coit and Roar are responsible for managing the business of the Partnership. Meador were liable under
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-4229.man.html">LAKER AIRWAYS V. BRITISH AIRWAYS (7/30/1999, NO. 98-4229)<BR></A><BR>
Laker also contends that the district court should not have applied the act of state doctrine to the actions of ACL because the government of the United Kingdom has no role in slot allocation.</P> <P><CENTER>II. Slot Allocation Process</EM></P> <P> The transatlantic airline industry is a highly regulated business controlled. Through negotiations among national governments.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-4229.man.html">LAKER AIRWAYS V. BRITISH AIRWAYS (7/30/1999, NO. 98-4229)<BR></A><BR>
Laker also contends that the district court should not have applied the act of state doctrine to the actions of ACL because the government of the United Kingdom has no role in slot allocation.</P> <P><CENTER>II. Slot Allocation Process</EM></P> <P> The transatlantic airline industry is a highly regulated business controlled. Through negotiations among national governments.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984229.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although Laker sought a transfer of slots at the time this case was before the district court. Laker also contends that the district court should not have applied the act of state doctrine to the actions of ACL because the government of the United Kingdom has no role in slot allocation. Slot Allocation Process The transatlantic airline industry is a highly regulated business controlled. Through negotiations among national governments.2 The governments of the United States and the United Kingdom have signed two bilateral treaties which control many aspects of the transatlantic industry. The gravamen of Laker's complaint is that BA conspired with ACL to prevent Laker from being relief. The coordinator is then responsible for the allocation of slots. The coordinator is to act in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0703p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Regina's husband Rudolph was the sole titled owner of the premises and the sole named insured on a homeowner's insurance policy entered into with Nationwide. Which was still pending at the time of the fire. DiDonato replied that Nationwide was still in the process of investigating. That the fire was accidental. Nationwide's policy is not to talk to the Fire Marshal until its own investigation is complete. Two days after the suit was filed. Nationwide received a written report that determined that the origin of the fire was accidental. DiDonato testified that the ALE claim could have been paid immediately upon receipt of the fire report. He did not know why an advance payment was not made until July 17. 1991 would be cancelled if an advance payment on the ALE claim was not made as promised. No payment was made and the deposition was cancelled. Inasmuch as Nationwide was awaiting a reply on its $11. Regina was no longer interested in rebuilding the Polselli home. In accordance with its policy that an insured who permanently relocates is entitled to less money.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/052225P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims against defendants against whom they have alleged no direct injury. The court rejected plaintiffs' alternative theory that they have standing without proof of direct contacts because their knowledge of the defendants' underwriting practices deterred them from making futile applications for insurance. 3 On appeal. Plaintiffs further argue that it is sufficient proof of direct contact that a plaintiff applied for homeowners insurance and was rejected. Without regard to the reason for the rejection or whether the plaintiff was made aware of that reason. That is. A plaintiff must show that he or she applied for homeowners insurance and was rejected for a reason related to the challenged underwriting criteria. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the court's findings regarding the absence of direct injury were clearly erroneous. 4 plaintiffs lack standing to claim that a different rate should have been charged. Were the product of an illegal price fixing conspiracy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1022.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Ubarri</SPAN> was on brief. Cornier was the general manager. Their relatives to divert United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2NjUgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-7665%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs allege that certain billing practices of the defendant home mortgage providers with respect to their provision of real estate settlement services to the plaintiffs were contrary to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Concluding that the practices in question were not prohibited by RESPA. Robert Schill are homeowners who obtained settlement services from the defendants while financing their purchases of homes in Brooklyn. Are wholly owned subsidiaries of the defendant Wells Fargo & Company. Which is in turn a wholly owned subsidiary of WFC Holdings Corporation.1 Defendants' corporate disclosure statement. Is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo Bank. Which is a subsidiary of WFC Holdings Corporation. Which is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company. The parties' differing accounts of defendants' ownership structure are not material to our resolution of the questions presented in this appeal. 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The complaint further alleges that between February and April 2002.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2NjVfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7665_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs allege that certain billing practices of the defendant home mortgage providers with respect to their provision of real estate settlement services to the plaintiffs were contrary to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Concluding that the practices in question were not prohibited by RESPA. Robert Schill are homeowners who obtained settlement services from the defendants while financing their purchases of homes in Brooklyn. Are wholly owned subsidiaries of the defendant Wells Fargo & Company. Which is in turn a wholly owned subsidiary of WFC Holdings Corporation.1 Defendants' corporate disclosure statement. Is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo Bank. Which is a subsidiary of WFC Holdings Corporation. Which is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 The complaint further alleges that between February and April 2002. Was required by the defendants to purchase certain
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984585.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 98 4585 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He argues that no evidence was presented that he had the intent to distribute. 1 Daryl Fuller was indicted for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine within one thousand feet of a housing facility owned by a public housing authority.2 On February 27. The district court accurately informed Fuller of the elements of the offense with which he was charged. All dates are in 1998. 2 The indictment also charged Fuller with a count of possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 844(a) (West 1999). This count was dismissed as part of his plea agreement. 2 At the district court's request. Fuller to be doing what apparently was rolling a marijuana cigarette. Fuller's attorney explained that his client had asked him for some
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1713p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which are endangered or threatened species. The project was a hurried response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Marilyn. The gravamen of the complaint is that the project would cause harm to the turtles and the Tree Boa species in violation of the ESA. This is the plaintiffs' second lawsuit. Instrumentalities of the Virgin Islands Territorial Government had violated the ESA as well 4 as the National Environmental Policy Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="242"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013077.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Congregation Kol Ami (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="242"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/982861P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dooley is also the president. One of which is called Oak Manor. Williams that one or more apartments were available. All three applicants were later denied an opportunity to rent an apartment at Oak Manor. Both Batts and Poole are black. Williams is white. She is the mother of a biracial child. Williams were seeking to a white man. Ragan also informed HUD that Big D refused to rent to Williams because she is the mother of a biracial child and her ex husband is black. 2 After investigating Ragan's and Williams' complaints. HUD found that appellants' acts of impermissible discrimination were not limited to Batts. The district court should have given a mixed motive instruction. The punitive damage award is excessive in relation to the compensatory damage award. The action is barred by the statute of limitations. We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and we will not reverse a jury's determinations unless we find
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="242"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/10/046016P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Debtors learned that their federal tax liability resulting from the ESOP liquidation was $150. Were only able to pay $20. The first debt was valued at $ 297. 000 and the second debt was valued at $32. The record indicates that Debtors have no equity in the Residence. Debtors' monthly payment on the first mortgage is $2. Their combined net income as of the petition date was approximately $7. The basis of the UST's motion was its argument that because Debtors had sufficient disposable income to fund a Chapter 13 plan. Debtors countered by arguing that their purchase of the Residence was as an investment. 000 debt that was secured by the Residence was utilized for investment purposes and was not a consumer debt. 3 Accordingly. Debtors maintain that their debts were not primarily consumer debts as required by § 707(b). Debtors testified at the hearing on the UST's motion that the reason they liquidated the ESOP and invested the proceeds into the Residence was that they believed that the Residence was a better investment than the ESOP.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="242"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1362.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. was on brief. P.A. was on brief. With whom Wright & Cherry was on brief. With whom Peabody & Brown was on brief. With whom King and Ryan was on brief. P.A. was on brief. P.A. was on brief. Hood was on brief. Were on brief. Suggest that while two New Hampshiremen might once have been a match for Satan. Times have changed. Further facts will be added as we discuss specific issues. Sepulveda was usually accompanied by his brother.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="242"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/042546P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The CVI supportive housing facility (which is now completed and occupied) was designed to provide permanent housing and rehabilitative services for homeless families with one or more members who have a disability. It was predicted that a majority of CVI residents The HONORABLE DAVID S. Which may be allowed upon showing that such use in a specified location will comply with all of the conditions and standards of this zoning ordinance.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="239"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5037.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Gerald M. Are the owners and managers of properties that have provided low income rental housing under several programs sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Once 20 years had passed since the mortgage was issued. HUD was required to ensure that the properties would continue to operate as low income housing and that the property owners satisfied certain other requirements. One of the requirements was that property owners had to be in compliance with all applicable HUD regulations governing the condition of the properties. 24 C.F.R. § 248.145(a)(12). The loans that HUD guaranteed were known as section 241(f) equity loans because the guarantees were authorized under section 241(f) of the National Housing Act. HUD refused to process the necessary paperwork on the ground that Carabetta was not in compliance with certain HUD regulations. Schedule D listed 25 properties the parties agree were to be insured under this provision. Another property was inadvertently omitted from 06 5037.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="239"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027365.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. State prison inmates in the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections who were housed at the Albemarle Char KHALIQ v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="239"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5123.html">FRANCONIA ASSOCIATES V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <U>John F. With him on the brief was <U>David M. Appellants are owners of low income rental housing units financed by mortgage loans from the Farmers Home Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="239"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/993656.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tillman is a former prisoner who was assessed a fee of $10.00 per day for housing costs stemming from two periods of incarceration in a county facility for state parole violations. When Tillman was confined for the second term. For which his account was turned over to a collection agency after his release from prison. We will affirm. I. Facts The underlying facts are. Tillman was incarcerated in the Lebanon County Correctional Facility in Pennsylvania between January 30. Parole was again granted. These actions were taken pursuant to the facility's Cost Recovery Program. Prisoners are assessed a daily charge of $10.00 towards their housing expenses. The availability of prison services is not contingent upon keeping a clean account. A negative account balance is created. Any remainder is credited to the prisoner's inmate account for his or her personal use. If there is still an outstanding negative balance upon a prisoner's release from jail. Any funds remaining in his or her inmate account are put towards the debt.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="237"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/99-6054.htm">99-6054 -- DUKE V. ABSENTEE SHAWNEE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA HOUSING AUTHORITY -- 12/20/1999<BR></A><BR>
The district court held that ASHA was an Indian tribe and was therefore excluded from Title VII's definition of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2152.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for Andrew Cuomo. Was on brief for Trafalgar Capital Associates. Complained that HUD miscalculated the amounts to which the project was entitled. The district court found that three decisions by HUD were arbitrary and capricious and that Trafalgar's claim on a fourth HUD decision was barred by the statute of limitations. The Moderate Rehabilitation Program is designed to encourage private individuals to rehabilitate low and moderate income housing through the award of rent subsidies. A permanent agreement once the rehabilitation is completed and the units are ready for occupancy. Residents eligible for Section 8 housing are required to pay rent based on their monthly income. The contract rent is based on two components: 1) the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="235"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/73E06C2AB382AF63882571D900545890/$file/0435370.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants Appellees. *A complete list of the appellants and appellees with district court case numbers is set forth in a separate. Certain appellants on that list were dismissed in this court's orders filed on January 14. The names of some of the dismissed appellants who were lead plaintiffs in multi plaintiff cases have been retained on the caption for reference purposes only. 10293 10294 IN RE PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE LESLIE ACKEL. Were randomly assigned to two panels. For which separate unpublished dispositions have been filed. 1 All judges participated in deciding. II and III which are common to all appeals. Judges Nelson and Leavy participated in deciding and sign an opinion only with respect to those appeals assigned to the panel of which they were respectively a member. Circuit Judge: These appeals are from judgments of dismissal entered in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding for failure to comply with case management orders. The orders were entered with the agreement of all sides that they were necessary to move hundreds of cases and thousands of plaintiffs toward resolution on the merits.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="235"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F569EF00290007188256BC0005876E6/$file/9935320ebcorrected.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\temp21\PlannedParenthoodLetter1.wpd
OPINION/ORDER
Before defendants were served. He was and remains in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). The following are the
OPINION/ORDER
FACE gives aggrieved persons a right of action against whoever by
OPINION/ORDER
We hold unanimously that the residency restriction is not unconstitutional on its face. Because the appellees have not established by the
OPINION/ORDER
In Exxon Mobil the Court clarified the scope of the Rooker Feldman doctrine and made clear that courts have applied it beyond its appropriate boundaries. We find that the Rooker Feldman doctrine is not applicable in this case. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment on res judicata grounds. Turner was delinquent in her rent and sought an accommodation from McCormack Baron allowing her to pay her rent late
OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Because we have clarified the construction of
OPINION/ORDER
Davet testified at the hearings and was given an opportunity to introduce evidence and to present and cross examine witnesses. Noting that he had failed to show
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On page 4. Bennazar & Colorado were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. *Of the District of Massachusetts. Appellants are Nestor Col n Medina & Sucesores. Cerame Vivas is the president of the board of directors of Sucesores. He is allegedly an outspoken member of Puerto Rico's pro statehood New Progressive Party (
OPINION/ORDER
We will reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings. We will limit the triable issues on remand to a determination of: (1) the definition of
OPINION/ORDER
Mallard was a prison laborer for Oklahoma Correctional Industries (OCI). Mallard stated that he was transferred because he is black and because he had previously filed a grievance regarding Mr. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A factual dispute is only
OPINION/ORDER
Universal Maritime contends that these payments are
OPINION/ORDER
It was once a suit based on federal and state laws guaran 2 Nos. 04 1191 & 04 1302 teeing various rights to fair housing. All that is before us is the district court's order requiring the plaintiff. That the court should not have taken this action directly against the law firm of Lee. That Puritan and perhaps the other defendants were thus negligent in hiring him. Her stated reason for the motion was that
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Frank Bros. is a construction company with its principal place of business in Janesville. Which were funded by capital from both federal and state agencies through the provisions of the Federal Aid Highway Act (
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND is constitutional. Plaintiff appellant Brenda Parks is a Sergeant in the Special Investigative Unit of the Warner Robins Police Department.
OPINION/ORDER
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. I. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
OPINION/ORDER
The Kamehameha Schools have operated as the charitable legacy of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The Kamehameha Schools give preference to students who are of native Hawaiian ancestry. Attendance at the Kamehameha Schools is effectively limited to those descended from the Hawaiian race. The issue considered here is a significant one in our statutory civil rights law: May a private. Purposefully exclude a student qualified for admission solely because he is not of pure or part aboriginal blood? The parties agree that this is a case of first impression in our circuit. He argues that he was denied entry to the Kamehameha Schools because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. I The facts are not in dispute. Nonsectarian schools which are dispersed among the Hawaiian Islands. KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS 8927 The school system was founded in 1887 under a
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.
I.
The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:
English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.
Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Parks v. The district court held that the anti nepotism policy is constitutional. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Plaintiff appellant Brenda Parks is a Sergeant in the Special Investigative Unit of the Warner Robins Police Department. Anti nepotism.<p> <p> (a) <i>Definitions.</i>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/94-8097.html">PARKS V. CITY OF WARNER ROBINS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Parks v. The district court held that the anti nepotism policy is constitutional. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Plaintiff appellant Brenda Parks is a Sergeant in the Special Investigative Unit of the Warner Robins Police Department. Anti nepotism.<p> <p> (a) <i>Definitions.</i>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR>
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986598.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1159a.html">NATIONAL MULTI HOUSING COUNCIL V. EPA<BR></A><BR>
Riley was on brief. <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032898p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal requires us to decide whether this holding is consistent with Robinson v. Is not prejudiced by the delay. We hold that it is. That the petition was untimely. We will therefore affirm the order of the District Court denying the petition on that ground. I. Facts and Procedural History Long was found guilty by a jury in Indiana County. His post trial motions were denied and he was sentenced to life in prison. In August 1995 new counsel was appointed under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act. It was denied. It was denied as an untimely state post conviction petition. As the merits of Long's claims are not at issue here we will not provide an exhaustive list. Long alleged that: (1) he was deprived of a fair trial in that his motion for severance was denied and in that witnesses were not sequestered. (2) his statement to police was admitted in violation of Miranda v. That any habeas claim that could fairly be said to have been raised at all levels either on direct appeal or in the first state post conviction petition was exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1274.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellee. I. Factual and Procedural History The jury was entitled to find the following facts. Graham originated the loans and was paid on commission. All mortgages were eventually assigned to Dime NY. Dime NY is a federally chartered savings bank with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Graham was charged in eleven counts of the indictment. Two of these counts were severed and later dismissed by the government. Graham was tried by a jury on the remaining counts. Selective Prosecution and Conflict of Interest Graham asserts that her conviction violated her right to due process because it was the product of selective prosecution on the part of the government. Graham points to the fact that Dime Bank New York was not indicted on criminal charges after it gave a $2. Further complicating this picture is the fact that Dime NY was partially owned by the FDIC and that the decision not to indict the bank came just before a successful public offering of shares in the bank.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-2730.man.html">ANDREWS V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Andrews v. The government contends the fee award was disproportionately high. Claiming the award was too low. BACKGROUND<p> <p> The opinion we issue today is one in a series of related appeals which detail the facts of this case. <i>See Woodman v. The district court ruled that the only damages plaintiffs could recover under CERCLA were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1139_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Johnson claims that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need because they treated his hernia through nonsurgical means. Van Dyke Johnson was convicted of first degree murder in Illinois and was incarcerated by the Illinois Department of Corrections (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1FB3A0798C5F718488256A2900575A67/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-5304.man.html">ISKCON MIAMI, INC. V. METRO. DADE COUNTY (7/27/1998, NO. 97-5304)<BR></A><BR>
In addition to arguing that the bans on solicitation and sale of literature are unconstitutional restrictions on speech. ISKCON argues that the areas within MIA where ISKCON may distribute free literature are inadequate and that County regulations impermissibly grant the Director of MIA unfettered discretion to select the areas for such First Amendment activity.</P> <P><CENTER>BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> In June 1995. Made only after a finding by the Director that the restrictions are necessary to avoid injury. Krishna adherents are required to venture into public places to distribute religious literature and solicit support for the religion. Shortly after the new regulations were passed. Waiting areas are located. We are guided by the Supreme Court's decisions in <EM>International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Regulations on speech in traditionally public fora such as municipal sidewalks and parks are subject to strict scrutiny. As are regulations in fora designated by the government to be used for expressive activities. <EM>Id.</EM> at 678.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-5304.man.html">ISKCON MIAMI, INC. V. METRO. DADE COUNTY (7/27/1998, NO. 97-5304)<BR></A><BR>
In addition to arguing that the bans on solicitation and sale of literature are unconstitutional restrictions on speech. ISKCON argues that the areas within MIA where ISKCON may distribute free literature are inadequate and that County regulations impermissibly grant the Director of MIA unfettered discretion to select the areas for such First Amendment activity.</P> <P><CENTER>BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> In June 1995. Made only after a finding by the Director that the restrictions are necessary to avoid injury. Krishna adherents are required to venture into public places to distribute religious literature and solicit support for the religion. Shortly after the new regulations were passed. Waiting areas are located. We are guided by the Supreme Court's decisions in <EM>International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Regulations on speech in traditionally public fora such as municipal sidewalks and parks are subject to strict scrutiny. As are regulations in fora designated by the government to be used for expressive activities. <EM>Id.</EM> at 678.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041090p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge Karen Overall is a faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-2730.man.html">ANDREWS V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Andrews v. The government contends the fee award was disproportionately high. Claiming the award was too low. BACKGROUND<p> <p> The opinion we issue today is one in a series of related appeals which detail the facts of this case. <i>See Woodman v. The district court ruled that the only damages plaintiffs could recover under CERCLA were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/72C3AFD2DA892C1F88256D730070DAEB/$file/0210414.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Finding that the motion to suppress should have been granted. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND The facts are largely undisputed. The property is approximately 10 15 feet north of the border with Mexico. The property is surrounded by. There is a space in front of the house. At the back of the backyard is a shed. There is a space of about two and half feet between the shed and the fence. The distance from the back door of the house to the shed is approximately twenty feet. The backyard itself is no more than thirty feet deep. 10517 Beginning on the night of September 17. The last sighting was at 7:30 a.m. on September 18. Although there is some conflicting testimony regarding what was then said between Romero and Feldman. It is undisputed that Romero ultimately agreed to allow the agents to search his house. While they were in the house Agent Adams heard a sound coming from the backyard and went around the side of the house to investigate. The agents then arrested Romero. 1 Although the video recordings are ordinarily saved.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/991821.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue on appeal is whether the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to a non profit corporation pr oviding residential human services programs for mentally ill and mentally retarded adults. We will vacate the judgment and remand for further findings. I. Background Plaintiffs are current and for mer employees of Defendant Resources for Human Development. RHD is a Pennsylvania non profit corporation that pr ovides its clients mentally ill and mentally retar ded adults with human services programs such as community health 2 centers. Overtime pay is equal to 1.5 times an employee's regular pay rate. Both programs are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/12/982527P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court will collectively refer to the appellants/cross appellees as the class. The court will collectively refer to appellees/cross appellants as Farmland. 2 4 3 2 1 I. A Jurisdictional Issue We have jurisdiction over final orders and certain types of interlocutory orders. A pretrial order dismissing less than all of a plaintiff's claims is interlocutory and cannot be appealed unless it includes the grant or denial of an injunction. Or the interlocutory order is appealable under the narrow. Though the two summary judgment orders were interlocutory. At the class' request the district court both directed the entry of judgment pursuant to a Rule 54(b) determination there was no just reason for delay. Explaining that its purpose was to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11AD05B0286183D288256EAF0053B497/$file/0216632.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: Appellants in these consolidated appeals are law enforcement officers of the Navajo Nation Division of Public Safety (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991636.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was denied. A. The relevant facts underlying this claim are undisputed and fully detailed in the district court's opinion. DRI's gross income from its electric utility business is a function of the electricity rates it charges its customers. Many public utilities have established similar reserve accounts to meet deferred income tax liability. They may have received similar compensation from the utility serving their new residence or business). The remittance was allocated on the basis of the 1991 customers' electricity use during the preceding 12 months. The issue here is whether DRI is entitled to invoke § 1341 to obtain from the government an additional $1.2 million deduction. It was determined that the taxpayer was not entitled to the income. His only option was to deduct the amount of that income in the year of repayment he could not recalculate his income for the year of receipt. § 1341 is designed to put the taxpayer in essentially the same position he would have been in had he never received the returned income.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-1122.htm">98-1122 -- FLANNERY PROPERTIES V. BYRNE -- 05/30/2000<BR></A><BR>
Byrne told him the eastern property line
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515808.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Many of whom were admitted co conspirators testifying in exchange for immunity from prosecution for their roles in Edouard's charged offenses and/or a possible reduction in their sentences. Sibilia had first met Edouard in 1998 while they were both in federal custody in Miami. Sibilia learned that Edouard was also smuggling cocaine from Haiti to New York via commercial airliners. Sibilia also claimed that he twice sent cocaine through Edouard using this method and that he was paid by Hughes after the cocaine was sold in New York. The night before a shipment was to leave the Port au Prince airport. The container was then loaded with suitcases and placed onto a flight headed for JFK. Hubert and Scutt were arrested. Hubert was ultimately convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. The proceeds from the sales were shipped back to Haiti on commercial airliners arriving at the Port au Prince Airport. Perseverance employees were paid in U.S. currency. 8 Despite the modest profits generated by the lottery business.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6E64A576207600E88256F0300573040/$file/0216632.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Slip Opinion page 7727. Delete
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/95-6922.man.html">COMBS V. PLANTATION PATTERNS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Combs v. The dispositive issue in the appeal is whether Combs produced evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable factfinder to disbelieve Meadowcraft's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for failing to promote Combs. That Meadowcraft was entitled to judgment as a matter of law for that reason.<p> Part I of this opinion is a discussion of the facts. Our discussion of the law and application of it to the facts is contained in Part IV. It is in those parts of this opinion that we answer the dicta contained in the recent panel opinion in <i>Isenbergh v. Which is critical of the holding in <i>Howard v. Evidence from which the factfinder could find that all of the employer's proffered reasons for the challenged job action are pretextual entitles the plaintiff to have the factfinder decide the ultimate issue of discrimination. We answer the <i>Isenbergh</i> panel's criticism of the <i>Howard</i> line of decisions and explain why the holding of those cases is the law of this circuit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTkzMDhfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-9308_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are eligible for attorney's fees because they prevailed at trial on a claim that Toys
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5145a.html">USA V. SPICER JOHN R.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A44BAFB1546008588256E5A00707ADD/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956922.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The jury found that Meadowcraft The denied Combs a supervisory position because of his race. dispositive issue in the appeal is whether Combs produced evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable factfinder to disbelieve Meadowcraft's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for failing to promote Combs. That Meadowcraft was entitled to judgment as a matter of law for that reason. Part I of this opinion is a discussion of the facts. Our discussion of the law and application of it to the facts is contained in Part IV. It is in those parts of this opinion that we answer the dicta contained in the recent panel opinion in Isenbergh v. Which is critical of the holding in Howard v. Evidence from which the factfinder could find that all of the employer's proffered reasons for the challenged job action are pretextual entitles the plaintiff to have the factfinder decide the ultimate issue of discrimination. answer the We Isenbergh panel's criticism of the Howard line of decisions and explain why the holding of those cases is the law of this circuit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962730.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The government contends the fee award was disproportionately high. Claiming the award was too low. BACKGROUND The opinion we issue today is one in a series of related appeals which detail the facts of this case. The district court ruled that the only damages plaintiffs could recover under CERCLA were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-1492.htm">02-1492 -- STEELE V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS -- 12/29/2003<BR></A><BR>
Steele was taken from his cell and placed in the special housing unit at the United States Penitentiary in Florence. Steele's belongings were missing. He asserted that the grievance procedure is generally inaccessible to inmates because the mandatory first step requires cooperation of a staff member. The administrative review by correction officials is intended
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-6123.op.html">MCMILLIAN V. JOHNSON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McMillian v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> <p> Walter McMillian was convicted of the murder of Ronda Morrison and sentenced to death. McMillian alleges that state and local officials prosecuted and punished him for a crime that they knew he did not commit.<p> This is an appeal from the district court's order denying several defendants' motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We do not know to what extent McMillian's allegations of egregious official misconduct are true. Our role on this appeal is to decide the legal question of whether. If McMillian's allegations are true. The officials responsible are entitled to qualified immunity.<p> <p> <b>I. Many of the facts surrounding these events are hotly disputed at this. The summary judgment stage of the litigation.<p> Ronda Morrison was murdered in Jackson Cleaners in Monroeville. Were involved in the investigation of the Morrison murder. Benson are the appellants on this appeal.<p> On June 3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/95-6922.man.html">COMBS V. PLANTATION PATTERNS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Combs v. The dispositive issue in the appeal is whether Combs produced evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable factfinder to disbelieve Meadowcraft's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for failing to promote Combs. That Meadowcraft was entitled to judgment as a matter of law for that reason.<p> Part I of this opinion is a discussion of the facts. Our discussion of the law and application of it to the facts is contained in Part IV. It is in those parts of this opinion that we answer the dicta contained in the recent panel opinion in <i>Isenbergh v. Which is critical of the holding in <i>Howard v. Evidence from which the factfinder could find that all of the employer's proffered reasons for the challenged job action are pretextual entitles the plaintiff to have the factfinder decide the ultimate issue of discrimination. We answer the <i>Isenbergh</i> panel's criticism of the <i>Howard</i> line of decisions and explain why the holding of those cases is the law of this circuit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-6123.op.html">MCMILLIAN V. JOHNSON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McMillian v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> <p> Walter McMillian was convicted of the murder of Ronda Morrison and sentenced to death. McMillian alleges that state and local officials prosecuted and punished him for a crime that they knew he did not commit.<p> This is an appeal from the district court's order denying several defendants' motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We do not know to what extent McMillian's allegations of egregious official misconduct are true. Our role on this appeal is to decide the legal question of whether. If McMillian's allegations are true. The officials responsible are entitled to qualified immunity.<p> <p> <b>I. Many of the facts surrounding these events are hotly disputed at this. The summary judgment stage of the litigation.<p> Ronda Morrison was murdered in Jackson Cleaners in Monroeville. Were involved in the investigation of the Morrison murder. Benson are the appellants on this appeal.<p> On June 3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962730.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The government Plaintiffs contends the fee award was disproportionately high. cross appeal. Claiming the award was too low. BACKGROUND The opinion we issue today is one in a series of related appeals which detail the facts of this case. The district court ruled that the Early in the only damages plaintiffs could recover under CERCLA were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1557p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When she was discharged from her position as marketing coordinator in the Allegheny County Department of Development. Azzaro claims that her discharge was in retaliation for her reporting an incident of sexual harassment by an executive assistant to the County Commissioner. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that there was a causal link between plaintiff's report of sexual harassment and her termination. We also conclude that plaintiff's report of sexual harassment is constitutionally protected speech. We will reverse the district court and remand for a resolution of the remaining factual issues. I. Because we are obligated on summary judgment to view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. We will present Azzaro's version of the events leading up to her discharge. 1991 just over a year before she was discharged when her husband. Who was also employed by the County. Had a verbal confrontation with employees of the County Department of Employee Relations regarding the manner in which the Azzaros' daughters were treated in connection with their applications for jobs as County lifeguards.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956922.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The dispositive issue in the appeal is whether Combs produced evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable factfinder to disbelieve Meadowcraft's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for failing to promote Combs. That Meadowcraft was entitled to judgment as a matter of law for that reason. Part I of this opinion is a discussion of the facts. Our discussion of the law and application of it to the facts is contained in Part IV. It is in those parts of this opinion that we answer the dicta contained in the recent panel opinion in Isenbergh v. Which is critical of the holding in Howard v. Evidence from which the factfinder could find that all of the employer's proffered reasons for the challenged job action are pretextual entitles the plaintiff to have the factfinder decide the ultimate issue of discrimination. We answer the Isenbergh panel's criticism of the Howard line of decisions and explain why the holding of those cases is the law of this circuit. Which is sold under the brand name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/023940U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The residents claim that the SLHA failed to maintain a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4ED683B301798CC88256E5A00707CF8/$file/9915867.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Kozinski was drawn to replace Judge Fisher. 14113 99 15868 99 15869 99 15870 D.C. Is amended in accordance with the attached amended opinion. Judges Kozinski and Graber have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Aldisert has so recommended. 14120 The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Was wounded by a rifle shot fired by a correctional officer. To determine whether the rights assured Jeffers by the Eighth Amendment were violated. We must examine
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/71A061C7705237C3882571FC004939A4/$file/0436066.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the briefs. Was on the brief. Was on the brief. Appellants are residents who presently live in this housing property. We affirm the district court's denial of appellants' motion to intervene in the quiet title lawsuit because their interests are sufficiently protected by their APA lawsuit. Kimberly merely held that certain defenses were not available to the government in a quiet title action brought by Section 515 borrowers to enforce their contractual right to prepay their loans. Ours is an APA case brought by residents challenging the agency's noncompliance with the Emergency Low Income Housing Protection Act. Kimberly did not hold that ELIHPA was invalid or that the Department of Agriculture was free to violate it. I. Background The facts are not disputed. Section 515 of the National Housing Act of 1949 was enacted by Congress to encourage private investment in housing for elderly and low income individuals in rural areas. Which was later subsumed into RHS. UNITED STATES the housing owners agreed to rent to qualified low income tenants at affordable rates for as long as the loans were outstanding.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6BBA205C76E9317788256E5A00707A5E/$file/9915867.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Kozinski was drawn to replace Judge Fisher. Was wounded by a rifle shot fired by a correctional officer. 2218 To determine whether the rights assured Jeffers by the Eighth Amendment were violated. We must examine
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/03-1215a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4C38D10F7E442C09882569F900601A90/$file/9915867.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Kozinski was drawn to replace Judge Fisher. Was wounded by a rifle shot fired by a correctional officer. 2218 To determine whether the rights assured Jeffers by the Eighth Amendment were violated. We must examine
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/69E8AC83D0DECB7988256ADA0059D86C/$file/9915867.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Kozinski was drawn to replace Judge Fisher. 14113 99 15868 99 15869 99 15870 D.C. Is amended in accordance with the attached amended opinion. Judges Kozinski and Graber have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Aldisert has so recommended. 14120 The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Was wounded by a rifle shot fired by a correctional officer. To determine whether the rights assured Jeffers by the Eighth Amendment were violated. We must examine
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="220"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0202p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Davet testified at the hearings and was given an opportunity to introduce evidence and to present and cross examine witnesses. Noting that he had failed to show
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="220"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1711.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Were on brief for appellee. Defendant appellants were charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base. The government presented the testimony of numerous local police officers who executed search warrants or were otherwise involved in the investigation of the defendants and their co conspirators. Reyes Padilla was at the apartment with her parents. A young man was selling a controlled substance through an iron grating on the apartment door. Defendants Reyes Padilla and Morales Santiago were in the apartment. Among the entries in the notebook was one pertaining to fifty packets of heroin. Tensions escalated in early 1993 when a Santiago debt collector and a Rosario associate were both murdered. Co conspirator Andr‚s Col˘n Miranda were arrested in Bayam˘n. Col˘n Miranda were in possession of firearms without proper permits. Hidalgo testified that they were armed due to the ongoing tensions with the Rosario brothers. The distribution operation was moved to the apartment of Morales Santiago.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="220"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/63CA5B217C565EEB88256DA3007BF83A/$file/0215220.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They also claim that the ordinances violate their Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural due process and equal protection and are unconstitutionally vague. Associated with many hotels that were poorly maintained. The terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1207.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Douglas C. With him on the brief were Peter D. As that boundary is understood in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bowen v. The other defendants are the Federal Housing Administration (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051602np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the Pollards were discriminated against on the basis of race during their application for a home improvement loan. After the case was removed by Key Bank to the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The question presented here is whether the claims under the Pittsburgh City Code were properly remanded. They should have been decided and dismissed by the District Court. We find 2 that it can be disposed of on the more elemental ground that federal district courts should refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction once all federal claims have been dismissed. We find that the District Court's remand was not an abuse of discretion. We will affirm the Order of the District Court. I. Facts and Procedural History The Commission's suit was a fair lending action. The Commission claimed that the Pollards were improperly asked their race in applying for a home improvement loan. That there was no valid claim for relief because of the way the application had been handled. Remanded the City Code claims to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County for further proceedings. 3 Magistrate Judge Caiazza's recommendation that the federal Fair Housing Act claims be dismissed due to lack of standing was grounded on the view that the Act does not confer authority on local agencies to file suit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0470p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The County's actions are alleged. By certain health care providers who have not received such funds. To have resulted in a denial of their due process and equal protection rights. Have used a series of tax levies. The most recent such Hamilton County Health and Hospitalization Tax Levy was approved by the voters in November 2001. Whereby tax levy funds designated for indigent patient health care services (amounting to approximately $42 million per year) are distributed through the University of Cincinnati to University Hospital (80 percent) and Children's Hospital (20 percent) in reimbursement for services rendered to the indigent and uninsured. Although the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0437p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The general question presented by the relatively bizarre factual background of this case is whether or not a core function of municipal government the provision of firefighting services impacts interstate commerce such that an individual can be indicted under a federal anti arson statute for destroying a fire station. Is whether the Henning. Tennessee Fire Station was used in an activity affecting interstate commerce such that the person charged with setting it ablaze can be indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). We hold that this particular fire station was used in an activity affecting interstate commerce and accordingly REVERSE the judgment of the district court dismissing the indictment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURE Prometheus may have thought twice before handing down the gift of fire to humans had he imagined that those whom the mere mortals chose to steward the precious flame would use it to decimate the very mechanisms employed to control 1 No. 02 5185 United States v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/99-10813.man.html">TAPLEY V. COLLINS (5/5/2000, NO. 99-10813)<BR></A><BR>
Holding that qualified immunity is not a defense to Federal Wiretap Act claims. The district court did not decide whether they would be entitled to qualified immunity if it is an available defense to such claims. Arguing that the district court erred in determining that the defense of qualified immunity is not available to public officials faced with Federal Wiretap Act claims.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0025n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Shows me this is crack cocaine that's possessed for the purpose of distribution. These are 20 dollar rocks on the street.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/99-10813.man.html">TAPLEY V. COLLINS (5/5/2000, NO. 99-10813)<BR></A><BR>
Holding that qualified immunity is not a defense to Federal Wiretap Act claims. The district court did not decide whether they would be entitled to qualified immunity if it is an available defense to such claims. Arguing that the district court erred in determining that the defense of qualified immunity is not available to public officials faced with Federal Wiretap Act claims.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="216"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-3287.htm">03-3287 -- U.S. V. WESTOVER -- 08/11/2004<BR></A><BR>
District Judge.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="215"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/99-14535.man.html">JOEL V. CITY OF ORLANDO (11/13/2000, NO. 99-14535)<BR></A><BR>
Was arrested by City of Orlando (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="215"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/99-14535.man.html">JOEL V. CITY OF ORLANDO (11/13/2000, NO. 99-14535)<BR></A><BR>
Was arrested by City of Orlando (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="215"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0673n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was denied by Collierville building officials. A company that LBH says Collierville wrongly believe was affiliated with it. A writ of certiorari is a special petition to obtain review of an administrative board's decision. Specified that the section 1983 claims were based on violations of LBH's equal protection and substantive due process rights. Holding that the claim was time barred and. Summary judgment is proper where the movant shows through
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="215"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ2NDMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4643-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the remaining members of the Panel are in agreement. The district court dismissed the Because we find complaint on the pleadings prior to discovery. that plaintiffs have adequately pled facts that could support a finding of vicarious liability against Caplaw. LC Properties managed the apartment building and was the property's exclusive leasing agent pursuant to a Property Management Agreement (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="215"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0573n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that summary judgment was appropriate. Which is commonly known both as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="215"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/12/963653P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Determined that the Consent Decree was procedurally and substantively fair. Was consistent with CERCLA. The Intervenors also contend that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that the Consent Decree was procedurally and substantively fair. The two cases were consolidated. BACKGROUND The following summary of facts is largely taken from the district court's published Order and Memorandum. The MEW Site was owned at all relevant times by Missouri Electrical Works. The total amount of transformer oil that was not recycled during MEW's operation is estimated at 28. Apparently were disposed of at the MEW Site. Was contaminated. The PRPs were given an opportunity to object to the ultimate settlement package. The Intervenors are service shop owners and their trade association. Settling PRPs must pay for all costs but will be reimbursed by the government for twenty percent of some costs incurred in the design and construction of the remedial action. Additional response actions that are necessary to achieve certain performance standards.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="213"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/04/943578P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Robert Arnold (the Inmates) are prisoners housed in Missouri's Jefferson City Correctional Center's (JCCC) administrative segregation unit.1 brought separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions They *THE HONORABLE ALFRED T. Plaintiff Michael Saunders' action was dismissed under Rule 41(a) on December 17. I. JCCC is a maximum security prison housing approximately 2000 of Missouri's most dangerous criminals. housing categories: general administrative segregation. number of privileges. Prisoners are assigned to three protective custody. We reverse the General population allows inmates the greatest Inmates in general population may have food. Are allowed to attend group religious services. Have telephone access. Have recreation with others. Inmates in protective custody have much the same privileges as general population inmates. Administrative setting. segregation is the most restrictive confinement Protective custody inmates have canteen privileges For their own and others' safety. Inmates in administrative Administrative segregation inmates have very few segregation are housed in individual cells and kept separate from all other inmates at all times. privileges.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="213"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1234.html">COYLE'S V. CUOMO<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="213"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0382p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a tragic case. I. BACKGROUND Perez's Prior Terms of Incarceration at Oakland County Jail Perez was born in 1983. Was diagnosed as having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and as being learning disabled when he was six years old. When he was 17 years old. He pleaded guilty to two charges of felony larceny from a building and was given a six month sentence on May 11. It was initially determined that due to Perez's age he should serve his time in a boot camp. After he reported to a boot camp counselor that he was experiencing hallucinations and hearing voices telling him to quit or escape. Perez was transferred to the Oakland County Jail in late June. He was met by defendant Roberta Rice. Which was conducted by Dr. Perez was housed with a roommate and placed on a 30 minute
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/005031.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the August 10. Factual Background The historical facts in this case are rather straightforward and. Essentially are not disputed. Are related entities: USLR is the general partner in Black Horse. USRR is the general partner of USLR. Berger is the president of USRR.1 Appellees Essex and Dow also are related entities as Essex is Dow's wholly owned subsidiary by virtue of its purchase of all of Essex's stock in 1988. The parties do not dispute that appellants were aware of the Property's environmental problems at the time that USLR and Essex entered into the Agreement. Berger is a named partner in the lawfirm representing appellants. 3 respect to the remediation and detoxification of the Property: The parties acknowledge that the Subject Premises to be conveyed are subject to the provisions of the Environmental Clean Up Responsibility Act. Will implement the approved Clean Up Plan and complete the detoxification of the Subject Premises in accordance with and to the approval of the DEP. Seller will attempt to obtain the consent of the DEP to the conveyance of the Subject Premises. `ECRA Approval' will be deemed to have taken place upon the receipt by Seller from the DEP of the approval of the implementation of the Clean Up Plan and satisfactory detoxification of the Subject Premises or a consent from the DEP to convey the Subject Premises to Purchaser in the form of an Administrative Consent Order and bond securing the detoxification of the Subject Premises by Seller.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is constitutional as enacted by the Florida legislature and as subsequently enforced. Florida courts have defined the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0052n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hence we find that the order of summary judgment was appropriate and AFFIRM the District Court's judgment. I. Background Judy Thomas was hired as a dispatcher for the Co op in 1986. There were five dispatchers. All of whom were female. The dispatcher was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/80B97FB14A01E13588256E5A00707CBE/$file/9917350.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings to determine whether equitable considerations excuse Rodriguez's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 13059 BACKGROUND Rodriguez was employed as a delivery truck driver by Airborne for seven years. Until he was terminated in 1995. Rodriguez contends that his attendance problems were caused by his severe mental depression that resulted from the death of his infant son and other family difficulties. Although his supervisors at Airborne were well aware that his absences were caused by his depression and the side effects of his anti depressant medications. Was terminated on December 11. Left blank all questions pertaining to 1 FEHA is California's civil rights statute that proscribes employment discrimination on account of age. He was interviewed that same day by DFEH consultant Victor Aguirre. Explaining that it was the cause of his absences. He told Aguirre that his depression was due to the death of his child and separation from his wife.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0429p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The remarkable facts of this case make it indisputable that a substantial punitive damages award is warranted. Defendants' conduct was particularly egregious and a higher award to deter the casino from sanctioning such conduct in the future was appropriate. 000 will just as adequately serve the interests of punishment and deterrence and fits more comfortably in the ballpark of punitive awards that have been upheld in similar cases. Romanski then noticed there were also three female casino employees. One of these plain clothed security officers was Defendant Marlene Brown. Began to explain it was the casino's policy not to permit patrons to pick up tokens. Romanski could not have known this at the time because the casino does not post the so called policy anywhere. It is undisputed. That Romanski did not have and could not have had notice of the casino's purported policy on slot walking. It is undisputed that Brown and her colleagues escorted Romanski to what Defendants alternately call the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE70B42FB8DFC65D88256A53005D1047/$file/9955830.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When simultaneous cross motions for summary judgment on the same claim are before the court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are Shannon Staples and her minor children. Defendant Miller was the resident manager at University Hills. Two fair housing organizations were included in the group of Plaintiffs: the Riverside Fair Housing Council and the Inland Mediation Board. Plaintiffs' motion and Defendants' motions were filed on the same day. The court stated: 2 Those rulings are not challenged in this appeal. 3 The district court made no express rulings on Defendants' evidentiary objections. 6404 Plaintiffs have not submitted any admissible evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Merely repeat the unsworn factual allegations contained in their unverified complaint and are not supported by any admissible evidence. It then entered a separate order denying Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as moot and stating that the action was concluded in that court. After judgment was entered.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0440p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Applied and was rejected for the position of CMHA's Manager of Safety and Crime Prevention. White brought suit against CMHA alleging that she was not selected for the position because of her gender. (4) White failed to show that CMHA's proffered reason was pretextual. I. CMHA is a public housing authority created pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 3735.27 et seq. for the purpose of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/013031P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chrysler contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support the retaliation claim or the award of punitive damages. Because the parts were returned in small quantities. So the work was not as repetitive as other jobs he had tried. Or climbing was required. Salitros and Chrysler were in regular conflict over what duties Salitros could perform without exceeding his medical restrictions. The ongoing dispute about Salitros's restrictions was accompanied by personal animosity. Who was sometimes reduced to tears. Who looked
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4B59A3A43DA54A9B88256AC5005B2A39/$file/9917350.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings to determine whether equitable considerations excuse Rodriguez's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 13059 BACKGROUND Rodriguez was employed as a delivery truck driver by Airborne for seven years. Until he was terminated in 1995. Rodriguez contends that his attendance problems were caused by his severe mental depression that resulted from the death of his infant son and other family difficulties. Although his supervisors at Airborne were well aware that his absences were caused by his depression and the side effects of his anti depressant medications. Was terminated on December 11. Left blank all questions pertaining to 1 FEHA is California's civil rights statute that proscribes employment discrimination on account of age. He was interviewed that same day by DFEH consultant Victor Aguirre. Explaining that it was the cause of his absences. He told Aguirre that his depression was due to the death of his child and separation from his wife.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/982489U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To whom the case was submitted by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 1 On April 18. The House Judiciary Committee indicated that these civil penalties are maximum. Are not automatic in every case. The judgment is affirmed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B3FAF57762DE098388256E5A00707B53/$file/9955830.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When simultaneous cross motions for summary judgment on the same claim are before the court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are Shannon Staples and her minor children. Defendant Miller was the resident manager at University Hills. Two fair housing organizations were included in the group of Plaintiffs: the Riverside Fair Housing Council and the Inland Mediation Board. Plaintiffs' motion and Defendants' motions were filed on the same day. The court stated: 2 Those rulings are not challenged in this appeal. 3 The district court made no express rulings on Defendants' evidentiary objections. 6404 Plaintiffs have not submitted any admissible evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Merely repeat the unsworn factual allegations contained in their unverified complaint and are not supported by any admissible evidence. It then entered a separate order denying Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as moot and stating that the action was concluded in that court. After judgment was entered.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3662.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are not in dispute. The contract was made conditional on the plaintiff's obtaining these legal changes from the City. The authority of the City Council of Greenwood to make such changes is not contested. The vote was 3 3. One was absent. Since there was a tie.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-8035_008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
GMACM had not made the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/012961P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eighth Amendment rights when he was placed in a segregation cell for 26 months at the Tucker maximum security facility of the Arkansas Department of Correction. Was sentenced to death in June 1996 for killing a prison guard. X was housed on death row. These isolation cells are in a separate ward and contain double doors: an interior barred door and an exterior solid door with a small window. The parties consented to trial before a magistrate judge. 21 are normally used for less than 30 days to punish prisoners for disciplinary violations. While most of the prisoners are in the segregation cells for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/95-8374.man.html">HALL V. HOLDER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hall v. We hold that the governmental structure was neither enacted nor maintained with a discriminatory purpose. Having
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0202n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Dismissed all claims against the City and amended the complaint to name the State of Ohio as a party defendant. 1 * disabilities while she was participating in a drug and alcohol counseling program administered by Quest and ordered as part of her punishment after she pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Rachel Haas (Haas) was operating an all terrain vehicle in Louisville. Haas was hit by a truck and suffered serious injuries. She was hospitalized for several weeks. Her left leg was amputated above the knee. A metal rod was placed in her right arm. She was prescribed pain medication and a course of physical therapy upon her release from the hospital. The factual background is taken from the first amended complaint. The first amended complaint describes her experience as follows: Plaintiff was instructed by a Quest employee upon her arrival to proceed with her luggage to the sixth floor of the building. When she asked where the elevator was located.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/95-8374.man.html">HALL V. HOLDER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hall v. We hold that the governmental structure was neither enacted nor maintained with a discriminatory purpose. Having
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1924.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. is trustee. On a provision allowing removal by defendant who is denied or cannot enforce in state court his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="207"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0049n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thus they have been consolidated for the purposes of the decision. Defendants' briefs raise several issues that are not properly before this court for various reasons. Among them that the claims were not raised in defendants' notices of appeal. Perjured himself when he testified at trial that funds were available for the purchase of defendants' properties. Finding that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0780n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff's first claim was against Defendant Jackson. Plaintiff asserted that Jackson was segregating disabled The Honorable William H. Was in the process of executing a de facto taking of the housing complex in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution by foreclosing on it. The second claim was against Defendant Millennia for breach of contract. Granting summary judgment to both Defendants and denying Plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction and for summary judgment. 2 No. 05 4303 BACKGROUND Capitol Park is the owner of a 98 unit apartment building called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr95/93-6240.man.html">DAWSON V. SCOTT<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dawson v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This habeas case presents the first impression issue for our circuit of whether sentence credit is applicable for time spent in a halfway or safe house as a condition of release on bond before adjudication of guilt or sentencing. The district court determined that denial of sentence credit for this time was the proper statutory and constitutional interpretation. Dawson was arrested by New Mexico federal agents for cocaine distribution. When Dawson was arrested. Dawson was released on a personal recognizance bond. The bond was revoked upon a finding that Dawson was ineligible for bond because he had no home to which he could be released. Dawson was returned to custody. Dawson was released on bond with the condition that he be placed in the custody of La Posada Halfway House in Albuquerque. It is undisputed that he was subjected to the same conditions as other residents. Were mandatory. Residents were confined to the premises of the halfway house from 7:00 P.M. until 7:00 A.M. only.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0268p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Williams's appeal is now before the court. After receiving word via walkie talkie that the situation was secure. Who were roommates. Jessica answered the door and told Wynn that Madison was not home and Howard was asleep. Went back in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr95/93-6240.man.html">DAWSON V. SCOTT<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dawson v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This habeas case presents the first impression issue for our circuit of whether sentence credit is applicable for time spent in a halfway or safe house as a condition of release on bond before adjudication of guilt or sentencing. The district court determined that denial of sentence credit for this time was the proper statutory and constitutional interpretation. Dawson was arrested by New Mexico federal agents for cocaine distribution. When Dawson was arrested. Dawson was released on a personal recognizance bond. The bond was revoked upon a finding that Dawson was ineligible for bond because he had no home to which he could be released. Dawson was returned to custody. Dawson was released on bond with the condition that he be placed in the custody of La Posada Halfway House in Albuquerque. It is undisputed that he was subjected to the same conditions as other residents. Were mandatory. Residents were confined to the premises of the halfway house from 7:00 P.M. until 7:00 A.M. only.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023833p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A group of twenty two police officers sought to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional. Who was not a party to the 1997 suit. Alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for complaining about the condition of the Department of Public Works garage. Three of the four officers' cases were consolidated for pre trial purposes with the mechanic's case. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the city on the three officers' claims but allowed the mechanic's claims to proceed to trial.1 We conclude that the District Court should not have granted summary judgment on the police officers' retaliation claim. Who were not parties to the 1997 suit. Were permitted to keep their jobs The District Court subsequently granted partial summary judgment in favor of the city in the fourth officer's case but that case is not before us. 3 1 despite the city's knowledge that they were not city residents. It is undisputed that. A group of twenty two Scranton police officers filed a complaint alleging that the city's residency ordinance was unconstitutional on its face and as applied.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062362np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A mediation conference was held with a Magistrate Judge. Is binding upon the parties.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/12/021332P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND SLHA is a municipal corporation created by the City of St. SLHA is required to submit annual performance certifications and suggested scores in eight categories or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199812/97-7162a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief was Jonathan M. They alleged that some class members were deficient in the English language and that the District had failed to provide qualified interpreters to these inmates when they appeared at parole and disciplinary hearings and when they sought medical care. I There are 9. Mem bers of the prison staff are fluent in a total of forty seven languages. 1 The district court certified a class consisting of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-5321a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. At issue is a white male employee's challenge to a government agency's affirmative action policy that allegedly deprives him of the opportunity to compete for job openings on an even playing field. We have jurisdiction over neither. Is unripe. Will adversely affect his prospects for advancement. Cir. 1999) (requiring plaintiff to have suffered an adverse employment action to prevail in a Title VII suit). While that motion was pending. MD 715 declares that agencies have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0459n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which we have consolidated for appeal. The Flats Safety Task Force was created in response to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972784.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The placard is valid for five years and is renewable. That are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part. Appellants are persons with disabilities who paid a five dollar fee to the DMV to receive a placard. Appellants sought a declaration that the fee was unlawful and an injunction against its continued imposition. Neither party argued that the regulation was ultra vires. The court held that the ADA impermissibly mandated that disabled individuals were entitled to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court stated that the ADA was not remedial legislation at all. The Supreme Court recognized that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1996/96a1466p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Facts and Procedural History Ann Stehney is a mathematician. The Institute is a private think tank that conducts cryptological research the making and breaking of secret codes as a contractor for the National Security Agency. NSA must ensure that access to classified information is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-3345.html">GEORGE W.T. V. HUD ERRATA INCLUDED<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/04/984188P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was rehabilitated in 1974 1975. Cathedral Hill was to prepay the outstanding balance of the mortgage. Closing was to occur no later than February 27. HUD informed plaintiffs that if a mortgage prepayment were tendered. It would have to accept it. The MHFA were prepared to authorize an additional $1. HUD notified LEECO that it was considering nonrenewal of the Section 8 contracts due to deficiencies in Selby Dayton's physical condition. HUD concluded that the property was in unsatisfactory physical condition. HUD notified LEECO on March 10 that it was terminating the contracts. Seeking a declaration that HUD's actions were in violation of law. Notified Cathedral Hill the following day that it was canceling the prior purchase agreement. That if prepayment of the mortgage were tendered on or before May 22. Concluding that plaintiffs were not prevailing parties. Even if they were prevailing parties. HUD's position was substantially justified. The EAJA directs courts to award fees and other expenses to prevailing parties unless the United States' position was substantially justified or special circumstances would make an award unjust.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1908.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. The issue presented in this appeal is whether a lessee's minor children have standing to sue a lessor for failure to disclose information regarding the hazards of lead paint as required by the Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1628_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hybrids can be grown only if the plant's tassel is removed so that it may be fertilized by a different variety. Though machines have been developed for this task Remington prefers hand detasseling when that is feasible. Removing unwanted plants (rogueing) to improve the average quality of a plot also is best done by hand. Their main target is Remington. Concluded that Zarate was the workers' only employer. Summary judgment was entered in favor of Remington and its two senior managers. The agreement between Remington and Zarate is a standard form for creating an independent contractor relation. The workers' principal contention is that it just doesn't matter whether Zarate was an independent contractor. Is that. There is no reason to read it in that fashion. Whether Remington is bound by Zarate's promises is wholly a matter of state law (whether of Indiana or Texas is a subject the parties do not discuss). This is so even if Zarate was Remington's agent. The AWPA likewise is silent about guarantees of work.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/059A7171201E1BD188256BFF00573DFA/$file/9970396.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Agyeman claims that he was denied a full and fair hearing because he was not given adequate instructions as to how to proceed with his applications for relief. That the denial of adjustment of status was predicated on his inability to procure his wife's attendance at the deportation hearing to testify on his behalf. Which was approved in 1992. Agyeman's application for adjustment of status was denied because the couple failed to attend the scheduled interview and submit Agyeman's medical examination. Levy was unable to attend the interview because she was hospitalized for bipolar disorder at the time. 10350 AGYEMAN v. The IJ instructed Agyeman that his wife's testimony was mandatory to determine the bona fides of their marriage. The IJ asked whether Levy was still hospitalized. The IJ stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/96-2019.wpd.html">SANDERS V. ELEPHANT BUTTE IRRIGATION DIST. OF N.M.<BR></A><BR>
On appeal the District argues that it was entitled to the irrigation exemption under 29 U.S.C. 213(b)(12). Even if it was not. I The District is a quasi municipal entity that delivers nonpotable water to its members during the irrigation season.(1) It serves over 90. The District's customers are either farmers engaged in agriculture or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/98-3337.htm">98-3337 -- RURAL WATER DISTRIST NO.1 V. CITY OF WILSON KANSAS -- 03/22/2001<BR></A><BR>
Remand. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> The City is a municipal corporation in Ellsworth County. Post Rock is a rural water district formed on March 5. They may not connect to the City water system unless Post Rock is unable to provide service or releases them from the water district. <p> To receive water service. If the engineer finds that there is sufficient capacity to serve the potential user and determines what additions will be required to the system. Purma Addition is located outside the 1979 Wilson city limits. 000. <p> Prairie Estates Addition is also located outside the 1979 Wilson city limits. There was testimony that it would take three to six days to provide water service. No houses had been built in Prairie Estates and none were planned in the immediate future. Post Rock could not state whether it would have the capacity to serve Prairie Estates in the future. <p> The Branda property was annexed into the City in 1992. Post Rock asserted it was entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-6375.htm">96-6375 -- VICE V. CONOCO INC. -- 08/03/1998<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5069.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was William T. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Paul W. This is an appeal of a judgment awarding attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F847B86BCD2AB49488256DFE007B89AE/$file/0315481.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are seriously ill Californians who use marijuana for medical purposes on the recommendation of their doctors. Such use is legal under California's Compassionate Use Act. That ruling is now before us. Marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance. (3) that there is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F213342087AAB17188256E5A00707B12/$file/9915812.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Artists & Allied Crafts of the United States and Canada (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D54C4A9C654C7DCD88256A3E005C5222/$file/9915812.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Artists & Allied Crafts of the United States and Canada (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C65B8D8A645F754188256EB5004E4AD7/$file/0256487.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The controlling question in this case is whether Appellant the City of Los Angeles (the City) may revoke a building permit issued to Appellee Congregation Etz Chaim (the Congregation) authorizing renovations to a home owned by the Congregation and used as a place of worship. Because we agree with the district court that Congregation was entitled to rely on issuance of the building permit by the City. BACKGROUND There is a long history of litigation between the City and the Congregation. Most of the Congregation's claims were dismissed. After the Agreement was signed and the Congregation's action was dismissed. The City described the permit as having been issued
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A49E276BB79962CA88256E94007D198E/$file/0216546.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Austin was incarcerated in the California State Prison at Solano. He was housed in the prison's psychiatric medical housing unit when James Williams. Came on duty and announced from the control booth that all inmates were to return to their cells and that the cell doors would be locked.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9334DEB6F3900ED988256E5A00707C36/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is further amended as follows: Slip op. How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. 10296 The Ex Post Facto Clause expresses our commitment to constrain the manner in which legislatures can address intense fears of the type evoked by the return to the community of convicted sex offenders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8E6D00949CDFE6D38825705B004F17C8/$file/0316194.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We affirm the district court's conclusion as to preemption under the Bank Act but hold that the per diem loan interest statute is not preempted by the DIDMCA. The purpose of the audits was to ascertain whether the mortgage subsidiaries had overcharged interest and provided unduly low estimates of certain classes of settlement fees. 3 WFHMI was licensed to engage in real estate lending activities under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (CRMLA). Wells Fargo's claims as to WFHMI are not moot. Even if they were. There is no distinction between WFHMI and NCMC pertinent to our disposition. 4 Specifically. Unless a person or transaction is excepted from a definition or exempt from licensure by a provision of this law or a rule of the commissioner. The licensing requirements referred to in the section are discussed in more detail below. 5 The CFLL does not apply to any loans made pursuant to the CRMLA. BOUTRIS Commissioner is the state official charged with enforcing those laws governing licensed home mortgage lenders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8AA81159CCBF90FF882570650057106F/$file/0355403.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dang prevailed in a jury trial on his excessive force claim against Officer Gilbert Cross of the City of Compton Police Department and was awarded compensatory damages. We hold that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could award punitive damages if it found that Cross acted in an oppressive manner and we conclude that this error was not harmless. Dang was the shop manager of the Compton Jewelry Exchange. Who was waiting outside the store with two other officers. Dang was in the office. Which was separated from the salesroom where the officers stood by a bulletproof window and a steel security door. The officers informed Dang that he was under arrest.1 Without patting down or searching Dang. Dang informed the officers that the ring was in a safe. Knocking him to the floor.2 As Dang was pushed to the floor. When Dang was told he was under arrest. Dang testified that Officer Cross turned the camcorder off and removed it after Dang was handcuffed. 2 Dang testified that he reached into the safe to place the rings that he was wearing in the safe for safekeeping.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7D478AE8B5DDB29488257272005CE256/$file/0436141.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended to include the following at the end of footnote 7. We further note that 20 U.S.C. § 1415 was amended subsequent to the underlying events in this case. We have no occasion to consider whether these amendments alter the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys' fees under the IDEA. 1046 P.N. v. The petition for rehearing is denied. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. No further petition for rehearing will be entertained. The conflict was resolved by a settlement agreement signed only by the parties. The district court held that P.N. was not a prevailing party. (b) the determination that a parent is a prevailing party requires that there be some judicial sanction of the settlement agreement. (c) there is no judicial imprimatur of the settlement agreement in this case. I The IDEA seeks
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7AB53BB1CF05FFA488256EC90056E16B/$file/0216786.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is hearing impaired. The subject of this third appeal is the district court's award of attorney's fees to the Shapiros. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BACKGROUND Dori was enrolled at the Central Institute for the Deaf (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7458546F1523D0AB88256AA20001EBFC/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is further amended as follows: Slip op. How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. 10296 The Ex Post Facto Clause expresses our commitment to constrain the manner in which legislatures can address intense fears of the type evoked by the return to the community of convicted sex offenders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/677DAD9054A7918088256A920075D3DE/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-14507.op2.html">ELLEN MOORE V. LIBERTY NAT'L LIFE INS. CO. (9/28/2001, NO. 00-14507)<BR></A><BR>
Liberty National contends that plaintiffs' claims are barred by both Alabama's applicable statute of limitations and Alabama's common law doctrine of repose. Liberty National further argues that §§ 1981 and 1982 frustrate Alabama's statutory scheme of insurance regulation and are thus reverse preempted by the McCarran Ferguson Act. We do have the jurisdiction to address those claims if we choose. The district court ruled that the § 1981 claims accrued at the time the insurance contracts were made and therefore were </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/65268A0DB5061F64882571CA00802415/$file/0436141.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The conflict was resolved by a settlement agreement signed only by the parties. The district court held that P.N. was not a prevailing party. (b) the determination that a parent is a prevailing party requires that there be some judicial sanction of the settlement agreement. (c) there is no judicial imprimatur of the settlement agreement in this case. I The IDEA seeks
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/61AC4333BD2CF77C88256F18007CA599/$file/0315380.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs' request for fees is based on the theory that their lawsuit was a catalyst to bringing about Defendants' voluntary change of conduct and Defendants' revised interpretation of Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. The case was dismissed as moot. Plaintiffs argued that because this action was a catalyst in Defendants' decision to voluntarily remand the designations in the other case and a revised interpretation of ESA Section 4(b)(2). They are entitled to fees and costs pursuant to the fee shifting provision of the ESA. Defendants appeal that award and argue (1) that the E
