Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Asset freezing injunction on the United States' allegations that the defendant oncology service providers defrauded the Medicare and CHAMPUS1 programs and thereafter were engaging in complex reorganizations and transfers of assets to insulate themselves from liability. Concluding that because both money damages and equitable relief are sought in this case. The controlling authority is not Grupo Mexicano but Deckert v. Doctors Colkitt and Derdel are physicians specializing in radiation oncology. The United States alleges that the defendants claimed reimbursement on bills for radiation oncology services that were not provided or ordered by the physician and on bills for unnecessary radiation oncology services. Count V 8 alleges that payments were made to defendants under a mistake of fact. Count VI alleges that all actions of the defendants were actions of Colkitt under an alter ego theory. Profits
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
I. This matter is before the en banc court to review issues emanating from the panel opinion in O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. The underlying facts relating to the parties and the issues are fully described in the panel opinion and are therefore unnecessary to reiterate here. The en banc court is divided over the outcome of this case. The en banc court holds that courts in this Circuit must recognize that any preliminary injunction fitting within one of the disfavored categories must be more closely scrutinized to assure that the exigencies of the case support the granting of a remedy that is extraordinary even in the normal course. Movants seeking such an injunction are not entitled to rely on this Circuit's modified likelihood of success on the merits standard. A majority of the en banc court is of the view that the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction in this case should be affirmed. The decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to grant UDV's request for a preliminary injunction is hereby AFFIRMED.
|
|
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
United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. Wright and Audrey Byrd Mosley were on brief. Glitzenstein was on brief. Circuit Judge: This appeal poses the recurring question of what remedy is appropriate for a federal agency's violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Which committee both the Department and the Academy concede was orga nized and operated in violation of FACA. Because we have serious doubts whether the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
McKusick sought a declaratory judgment that certain parts of the injunction are unconstitutionally overbroad. Or on their behalf
|
 |
CHANDLER V. JAMES (7/13/1999, NO. 97-6898)
Because the states are bound by the First Amendment. We shall affirm the judgment of the district court as to the Governor's appeal.
|
|
CHANDLER V. JAMES (7/13/1999, NO. 97-6898)
Because the states are bound by the First Amendment. We shall affirm the judgment of the district court as to the Governor's appeal.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
ESQUIRE McDermott Will & Emery 227 West Monroe Street. This case involves twelve1 consolidated appeals from the District Court's order approving Combustion Engineering's bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization under 11 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.2 We will vacate and remand. The state and federal judicial systems have struggled with an avalanche of asbestos lawsuits. The difficulties with asbestos litigation have been well documented by RAND and others.3 Efforts to resolve the asbestos problem through global settlement class actions under Fed. P. 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(1)(B) have so far been unsuccessful. Mounting asbestos liabilities have pushed otherwise viable companies into bankruptcy. The centerpiece of the Plan is an injunction in favor of Combustion Engineering that channels all of its asbestos claims to a post confirmation trust (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
|
|
MCKUSICK V. CITY OF MELBOURNE
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > McKusick v. McKusick sought a declaratory judgment that certain parts of the injunction are unconstitutionally overbroad. Or on their behalf
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="879"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-2331.opa.html">MCKUSICK V. CITY OF MELBOURNE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McKusick v. McKusick sought a declaratory judgment that certain parts of the injunction are unconstitutionally overbroad. Or on their behalf
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="862"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-4126.htm">02-4126 -- SALT LAKE TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO. V. AT&T CORP. -- 02/24/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="860"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511556opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs have appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a temporary restraining order to require the defendants to transport Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo to a hospital to reestablish nutrition and hydration and for any medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. The district court entered a careful order which is attached as an Appendix to this opinion. Plaintiffs have also petitioned this Court to grant the same injunctive relief under the All Writs Act. Although we ordinarily do not have jurisdiction over appeals from orders granting or denying temporary restraining orders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="860"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511556.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs have appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a temporary restraining order to require the defendants to transport Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo to a hospital to reestablish nutrition and hydration and for any medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. The district court entered a careful order which is attached as an Appendix to this opinion. Plaintiffs have also petitioned this Court to grant the same injunctive relief under the All Writs Act. Although we ordinarily do not have jurisdiction over appeals from orders granting or denying temporary restraining orders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="841"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954214.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031708.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That is. Possession before just compensation is determined and paid in a condemnation action. The main question in this appeal is whether a gas company can obtain immediate possession through the equitable remedy of a preliminary injunction. I. East Tennessee Natural Gas Company (ETNG) is a regional gas transportation company. The procedure for obtaining a certificate from FERC is set forth in the NGA. (2) a statement of the facts showing why the project is required. Notice of the application is filed in the Federal Register. Public comment and protest is allowed. At the end of the process FERC issues a certificate if it finds that the proposed project
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="838"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2028.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. The federal Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA or Act) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prescribe criteria specifying when public water systems are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="834"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031116.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lay
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="833"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-4214.opa.html">POMPEY V. BROWARD CTY.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Pompey v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="833"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-4214.opa.html">POMPEY V. BROWARD CTY.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Pompey v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="829"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-12507.man.html">FLORIDA ASS'N OF REHABILITATION FACILITIES, INC. V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF HEALTH (9/1/2000, NO. 99-12507)<BR></A><BR>
That in any event the relief ordered by the district court is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the extent it effectively requires the State to pay money to redress pre judgment violations. We remand for determination of whether Plaintiffs' entitlement to prospective relief had become moot by the time of judgment.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="829"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-12507.man.html">FLORIDA ASS'N OF REHABILITATION FACILITIES, INC. V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF HEALTH (9/1/2000, NO. 99-12507)<BR></A><BR>
That in any event the relief ordered by the district court is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the extent it effectively requires the State to pay money to redress pre judgment violations. We remand for determination of whether Plaintiffs' entitlement to prospective relief had become moot by the time of judgment.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="826"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216640.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 physicians are suing many of this country's largest HMOs. The court held that certain claims were arbitrable. This order was slightly modified in In re Managed Care Litig. The district court certified a class in an order which is currently on appeal before this court. Whether the plaintiffs have adequately stated any claims. Or the merits of those claims An important point is that. It does not necessarily mean that arbitration of such a claim is prohibited or illegal. If this is done without the other party's consent. The result is a legal nullity. The first modification was in response to an inconsistency in its original opinion that the defendants pointed out. The second modification was made due to the subsequent history of 2 3 2 1 * procedural history leading up to them are not immediately relevant to this appeal. Are not being challenged here. The only claims remaining were those the court had ruled non arbitrable. The substance of these arbitration orders is not currently before us on appeal. The only important fact about the arbitration orders is that they designated some claims as arbitrable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="825"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200316424.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1918p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge: This appeal presents the question whether a suit in the District Court for the District of Delaware brought by certain Delaware property owners challenging assessments charged to them to provide for an expanded sewer system is barred either by the Tax Injunction Act. The plaintiffs appellants in this court are several persons owning real property in the expanded sewer district (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="820"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-5124.htm">03-5124 -- MILLSAP V. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP. -- 05/21/2004<BR></A><BR>
Any other damages based upon backpay) are available as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958751.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are SunAmerica Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary. Sun Life Insurance Company of America The (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1490.html">ADDITIVE CONTROLS V. FLOWDATA, INC.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul13/03-60529-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case was tried to the magistrate judge. Arguing that this court was without jurisdiction because the order from which MDOC appeals was inherently tentative. The order from which MDOC appeals is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="796"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1090.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="794"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2408.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gray LLP</SPAN> were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="794"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was argued before the en banc Court on February 27. (2) holding that the establishment of a magnet schools program was an ultra vires. King and Gregory in the affirmative) attorneys' fees for work done on the unitary status issue are denied. Nominal damages and attorneys' fees in that regard are denied. The injunction is vacated. The imposition of sanctions is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed on the finding of unitary status and the imposition of sanctions. The judgment of the district court vacating and dissolving all prior injunctive orders and decrees is affirmed. The Board is to operate the school system without the strictures of these decrees no later than the 2002 2003 school year. Circuit Judge: This case is hopefully the final chapter in the saga of federal court control over the Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="794"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/024046p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Daffy's is a chain of retail clothing stores specializing in selling popular brands of goods and apparel at discount prices. Inc. was recognized as a reputable supplier. The events leading to the purchase began when a representative of Sara's approached Daffy's regarding some Gucci handbags that were being diverted to the United States from a merchant in the Far East. Although Daffy's representatives were confident that the bags were genuine. A Daffy's employee presented one of the bags to the Gucci clerk and informed the clerk that she had received the bag as a gift 3 and was not certain of its authenticity. The employee asked the clerk to examine the bag and confirm that it was genuine. Informed the Daffy's employee that the bag was authentic. That conclusion was based on certain indicia of authenticity including the quality of fabric and leather. Daffy's also sent one of the bags it had purchased that was damaged to the Gucci repair center in New York for repair. Daffy's concluded that the bags it had purchased from Sara's were genuine Gucci bags.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1572p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case comes before us a second time for a determination whether New Jersey's regulation of the disposal of solid waste is constitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Are Atlantic Coast Demolition & Recycling. The latter two plaintiffs are. The defendants are the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The Carbone plaintiffs and the defendants have appealed the district court's decision. We will affirm the district court's findings that New Jersey's flow control laws and regulations are unconstitutional insofar as they discriminate against out of state waste processing facilities. We will not. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. I. FACTS As this nation's prosperity and consumption have increased over the years. States have attempted to meet those concerns by limiting or banning the importation of solid waste. States and municipalities have erected barriers to the exportation of solid waste in the hope that in state control of solid waste facilities will protect their communities from environmental harm.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="790"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5101.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On counsel were W. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Walter F. This is a post award bid protest case. PGBA filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking to have the award of the contract to WPS set aside. Rule that PGBA was entitled to recover its reasonable bid preparation and proposal costs. TRICARE is a military health care benefits program that provides health care benefits to dependents of active duty service members and to retired service members and their dependents. TRICARE is administered within the Department of Defense by TMA. The TRICARE system was divided into eleven geographical PGBA filed its first motion for reconsideration after the court issued its original order under seal. TMA will consolidate the MCS contracts from seven contracts covering eleven regions to three contracts covering three regions. This new contract is called the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="788"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1962.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLC</SPAN> were on brief for appellant. P.A.</SPAN> were on brief for cross appellant. It ruled that because the Advest IRA was in Cox's name when Cox petitioned for bankruptcy. Hence was not subject to the later judgment of the divorce court. We reverse the court's decision as to the Advest IRA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. </P> <UL> <LI><STRONG>BACKGROUND</STRONG></LI> </UL> <P> Laurie Davis and Thomas Cox were married on August 17. They have two minor children. Davis was a homemaker and. Cox was a successful commercial attorney. The court was required by Maine law to issue. The preliminary injunction was meant to keep intact. Is equitably divided by the court between the divorcing pair irrespective of in whose name it was held. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-3250.htm">96-3250 -- ANR PIPELINE CO. AND COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. LAFAVER -- 07/21/1998<BR></A><BR>
The plaintiffs' suit is not saved by the <u>Ex parte Young</u> doctrine. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-3250a.htm">96-3250A -- ANR PIPELINE CO. AND COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. LAFAVER -- 07/21/1998<BR></A><BR>
Is a <p> member of the firm Morris. Two and three of the opinion are attached for your convenience. <p> Sincerely. The plaintiffs' suit is not saved by the <u>Ex parte Young</u> doctrine. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="777"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1693p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are confronted with a tension between bankruptcy law and labor law. These claims were based on alleged seniority integration rights stemming from a pending labor arbitration dispute and were filed following Continental's acquisition of Eastern and subsequent refusal to bargain over the seniority integration of Eastern's pilots. Both of which are no longer represented by ALPA. Appealed to this court.1 Resolution of this dispute requires us to determine: (1) whether the bankruptcy claims that the LPP Claimants and the Group of 31 seek to enforce constitute
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="775"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30443BDD97F95D3A882570A4005595EC/$file/0335058.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To partially enjoin entry of the judgment on the ground that the state court award was inconsistent with the settlement reached in a prior nationwide class action involving L P and over which the court retained jurisdiction. Settled shortly after it was filed. Class claims related to the failure of Inner Seal Siding were released.1 L P also agreed to The settlement agreement required L P to make a minimum payment of $275. Qualified claims were paid from that fund and class members were barred from litigating any claim related to the failure of Inner Seal Siding for a period of four years from the date of the final order and judgment. At which time the claims administrator was ordered to notify L P if the settlement fund proved insufficient to satisfy all approved claims filed before January 1. L P was directed to advise class counsel whether it intended to satisfy the unfunded claims. It was required to make additional payments
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="774"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/95-8751.opa.html">SUNAMERICA CORP. V. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Sunamerica Corp. v. The plaintiffs are SunAmerica Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary. The defendants are Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and its subsidiary. The district court's judgment permanently enjoined SunAmerica from further use of any SUN LIFE mark.<p> Although Sun Life of Canada is the senior user of the SUN LIFE mark. Were it not for the existence of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="774"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/95-8751.opa.html">SUNAMERICA CORP. V. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Sunamerica Corp. v. The plaintiffs are SunAmerica Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary. The defendants are Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and its subsidiary. The district court's judgment permanently enjoined SunAmerica from further use of any SUN LIFE mark.<p> Although Sun Life of Canada is the senior user of the SUN LIFE mark. Were it not for the existence of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="767"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/06-5126a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter D. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief were Susan L. Circuit Judge: In this case we have before us a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of Shawqi Ahmad Omar. He traveled to Iraq seeking reconstruction related work and would have left by November 2004 but for his arrest and detention. The government believes that Omar was part of Zarqawi's network and that he facilitated terrorist activities both in and outside of Iraq. The government alleges that four Jordanian foreign fighters and an Iraqi insurgent were captured along with Omar. That weapons and improvised explosive device making materials were found in his home. The panel also found that Omar was not a prisoner of war for purposes of the Third Geneva Convention. American MNF I officials have held Omar at various detention facilities in Iraq. The record indicates neither who made this decision nor what procedures were followed. The government also argues that even if the district court does have jurisdiction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1143p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have sought a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from refusing to renew plaintiffs' franchise and from evicting them from the franchise location. Which plaintiffs have occupied since 1978. Plaintiffs' initial request for injunctive relief was denied on the ground that the event required to trigger the enforcement provisions of the PMPA. The question presented by this appeal is whether injunctive relief is still an available remedy for these plaintiffs against these defendants. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="764"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031326.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We believe that the court did have jurisdiction. The Plan provides that salaried and hourly employees cannot use vacation benefit days and will not be paid any vacation benefits upon termination of their employment until and unless they have completed. The purpose of the letter was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-5252a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Robert F. Brink mann were on the brief for amici curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. On the brief were Peter D. The only circuit then to have considered
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="761"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="761"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-1236.htm">97-1236 -- U.S. V. TELLURIDE CO. -- 06/25/1998<BR></A><BR>
The issues on appeal are whether the five year statute of limitations provided in 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="756"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/005056.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this appeal is whether. Are sellers of perishable agricultural commodities and beneficiaries of a statutory trust provided for by PACA. 1 are buyers of these perishable agricultural commodities and became statutory trustees under PACA upon purchase of such goods. Who allegedly was converting. Menadier is the sole shareholder and President of Packed Fresh Produce. That injunctive relief was futile when the PACA trust assets were already being depleted. The District Court should have granted the injunction sought. We will reverse and remand. Appellants' evidence includes the following: copies of Appellees' checks to Appellants that were returned for insufficient funds. Copies of Appellees' checks that were post dated as late as March 2000 for already overdue balances. 2 that Appellees often promised partial payment or assured Appellants that payment was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2123EC61ABB9D688825735300509F5D/$file/0535408.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal challenges an injunction limiting but not entirely prohibiting coal bed methane development while the Bureau of Land Management expands an environmental impact statement.1 Facts The Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming is the largest coal deposit in the United States and among the largest in the world. Farmers and ranchers generally have surface rights to the land involved in this case. The land is thought to cover vast amount of methane. This coal bed methane is a natural gas generated by coal deposits and trapped in coal seams by groundwater. Coal bed methane is extracted by pumping the groundwater out of the land and into rivers. As the water is removed. The hydraulic pressure on the gas is relieved. So the gas percolates and is piped to the surface. This opinion is written in ordinary English. The pollution of the rivers and streams into which the groundwater is pumped. So that ranchers' and farmers' (and expanding suburban developers') wells run dry unless they are drilled deeper.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="749"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/05-5143b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. We have no jurisdiction to review its denial of partial summary judgment. Because we conclude Appellants have satisfied the requisite showing of irreparable harm for an Establishment Clause violation. Any officer a promotion selection board considers but does not recommend for promotion is deemed to have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="749"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/023747P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Compact was created and entered into by five member states and was also enacted into law by Congress. Nebraska was selected as the site for the facility. The Commission is a plaintiff in this case. This action was originally brought against Nebraska and the Commission by utility companies from the five Compact states: Entergy Arkansas. The defendants named in the Commission's complaint were the State of Nebraska. The case was tried to the district court for two months. It found that Nebraska had not carried out its obligations under the Compact in good faith and that the Commission was entitled to recover over $97 million for funds and work expended in the thwarted attempt to construct the radioactive waste disposal facility. Some of which were decided against it on earlier appeals. We have already addressed the Compact and related issues in a series of earlier appeals in this case. 207 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2000) (Nebraska did not have veto power over low level radioactive waste export permits). V. Each member state is represented on the Commission by one representative and is entitled to a single vote.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001989.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The facts regarding the underlying fraud are set forth in the memorandum and order of the district court. Are not relevant to this appeal. There was no evidence that any physical commodities were ever stored on the customers' behalf. Approximately $2.41 million traceable to the fraudulent activity was deposited into accounts partially or wholly controlled by the Relief Defendants. About half of this money $1.22 million was deposited into accounts in the name of Kimberlynn Creek Ranch and 4 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING v. 912 was paid directly to Samuel Kingsfield. 000 was deposited into Pamela Kingsfield's account. Although the cards were ostensibly for business purposes. They were in fact used for tens of thousands of dollars worth of personal expenses. That they were simply holding the money on behalf of the Claim Defendants and had no right to make use of the funds. Does not provide subject matter jurisdiction over claims against individuals who have not violated the CEA and that. Also assets in which the Relief Defendants have an ownership interest.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200215103.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 have taken this interlocutory appeal from the district court's order denying their motions for class certification and preliminary injunction. The other seventeen property owners are George Cashin. The other appellees are the Glynn County Board of Equalization. The Glynn County Board of Education and City Commission of the City of Brunswick have not joined in the cross appeal. 2 2 1 * jurisdiction over this lawsuit. I. The essential background and procedural facts are these. This lawsuit arises out of a grievance they have with the way Glynn County assessed their ad valorem property taxes in the year 2000. Glynn County's system for assessing property taxes and adjudicating assessment disputes is complex. Which is responsible for assessing the county's property taxes. At which point the Board must notify any taxpayers whose assessments have been changed within five days. See O.C.G.A. § 48 5 302. 3 A taxpayer who is dissatisfied with the Board's reassessment of his property may appeal through the process set forth in O.C.G.A. § 48 5 311.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="740"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5D908D1C3A422ECF88256F4E005EE419/$file/0355858.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1. Which is equitable in nature. As is his cause of action for a constructive trust. Which is equitable in nature. Does not bar the issuance of a preliminary injunction freezing assets where fraudulent conveyance or equitable causes of action are pleaded in the bankruptcy context. An involuntary bankruptcy case was filed against Focus Media. John Pringle was appointed trustee. On the same day that the complaint was filed. These proofs of service IN RE: FOCUS MEDIA INC. 15963 reflect that service on Rubin was made
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="736"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2063.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Claiming that these Massachusetts state officers were violating the federal Endangered Species Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/985509.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider the validity of a provision in Continental Airlines' plan of reorganization that released and permanently enjoined shareholder lawsuits against certain of Continental Airlines' present and former directors and officers who were not themselves in bankruptcy. We will reject Continental Airlines' contention that claim preclusion and the doctrine of equitable mootness prevent us from considering the merits of this appeal. We will reverse the District Court's order approving the validity of this provision. Which is legally and factually insupportable. I. Appellants are plaintiffs in several securities fraud class action lawsuits brought against directors and officers of Continental Airlines Holdings. That order was affirmed on appeal on June 28. The District Court decision noted that the injunction could have been more narrowly crafted to permit some portion of Plaintiffs' class actions to continue. Insureds and the Insurers will provide releases to each other.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/299F23F9E9B73F3088256E91007CC1C9/$file/0315735.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this class action are independent truck drivers. Defendants are federally regulated motor carriers that contract with owneroperators to transport cargo across the country. They contend that the district court should have granted the motion for injunctive relief upon a showing of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1275.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I The University of Colorado is comprised of four campuses. One of which is the Health Sciences Center. One of which is the School of Medicine. Was appointed Professor of Medicine in the School of Medicine on or about July 1. He received continuous tenure and was subsequently appointed Head of the Renal Division of the Department of Medicine. The doctor was appointed Chair of the Department of Medicine. Department Chairs are responsible for the organization of their department and for implementing policies initiated by the Chancellor and Dean of their respective units. It is undisputed that the possibility of the transition of the Health Sciences Center from its Ninth Avenue location to Fitzsimons was the subject of extensive debate within the University community. He also maintains that his concerns about whether and how the Health Sciences Center should be migrated to the Fitzsimons site have evolved over time. The University maintains that Dean Krugman was not required to consult with faculty before dismissing Dr.
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976347.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Recognizing that the issuance of an order to show cause rather than an injunction is the appropriate device for enforcing a consent decree. The procedural history of this case is set out in our opinion in Reynolds v. The lawsuit was styled initially as Reynolds v. Butts was the director of the Department when the Adams Intervenors took this appeal. He was replaced as director by G.M. Who were permanent employees under the Department's merit system (the
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976347.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Recognizing that the issuance of an order to show cause rather than an injunction is the appropriate device for enforcing a consent decree. The procedural history of this case is set out in our opinion in Reynolds v. The lawsuit was styled initially as Reynolds v. Butts was the director of the Department when the Adams Intervenors took this appeal. He was replaced as director by G.M. Might have to the terms of the proposed decree. Who were permanent employees under the Department's merit system (the
</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/mar2000/97-6347.man.html">REYNOLDS V. ROBERTS (3/29/2000, NO. 97-6347)<BR></A><BR>
Recognizing that the issuance of an order to show cause rather than an injunction is the appropriate device for enforcing a consent decree. We vacate both orders and instruct the district court to restore the <EM>status quo ante.</EM></P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> The procedural history of this case is set out in our opinion in <EM>Reynolds v. Might have to the terms of the proposed decree. Consisting of the Department's non black employees.</P> <P> The January 19 hearing was held as scheduled. The objections to the race conscious aspects of the proposed consent decree were such that the parties withdrew it and. Consent Decrees II and III contained provisions that were acceptable to the plaintiffs and the Department. Adopted it in full.</P> <P><CENTER>B.</CENTER> </P> <P> Consent Decree I is composed of a series of
</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//mar2000/97-6347.man.html">REYNOLDS V. ROBERTS (3/29/2000, NO. 97-6347)<BR></A><BR>
Recognizing that the issuance of an order to show cause rather than an injunction is the appropriate device for enforcing a consent decree. We vacate both orders and instruct the district court to restore the <EM>status quo ante.</EM></P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> The procedural history of this case is set out in our opinion in <EM>Reynolds v. Might have to the terms of the proposed decree. Consisting of the Department's non black employees.</P> <P> The January 19 hearing was held as scheduled. The objections to the race conscious aspects of the proposed consent decree were such that the parties withdrew it and. Consent Decrees II and III contained provisions that were acceptable to the plaintiffs and the Department. Adopted it in full.</P> <P><CENTER>B.</CENTER> </P> <P> Consent Decree I is composed of a series of
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-2001_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
David Woods is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on May 4. OE This decision was originally released as an unpublished order. Minor punctuation and grammar changes have been made. 2 I. Woods was convicted of murder and robbery and was sentenced to death. Woods was granted leave to intervene on April 10. (3) an irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/022209p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred by retroactively increasing the amount of an injunction bond upon dissolution of a preliminary injunction. Sprint Communications Company L.P. is a provider of long distance telephone service. Inc. is a reseller of local telephone service. CAT Communications is a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier that leases lines from other Local Exchange Carriers and sells local telephone service available on these lines to the 3 public on a prepaid basis. None of these calls were paid for. The District Court found that the cost to CAT Communications of such restriction was at that point
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="729"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1433.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Ted G. Of counsel on the brief were Jennifer L. Of counsel were Todd J. With him on the brief were Maria Luisa Palmese and Robert V. Abbott moved for a preliminary injunction against Teva on the grounds that Teva was infringing claims 2. We have jurisdiction to review the district court's order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1). I. Clarithromycin is a broad spectrum antibiotic from the macrolide family of antibiotics. All of which are derived from erythromycin A. (2) immediate irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted. (4) the public interest is best served by granting the injunctive relief. 386 but as this case is a limited appeal of the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1) and that preliminary injunction did not extend to the claims of the 6. Those two patents are not before us today and will not be discussed. 05 1433 3 1 Abbott Labs. v. Teva alleged that the asserted patent claims were invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2076.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Meagher & Flom were on brief. Frazier were on brief. Sanchez Betances & Sifre were on brief. McConnell Valdes were on brief. BACKGROUND This is presumably the final skirmish in a decade long conflict. Other jousts are chronicled in a series of published opinions. We believe that a condensed summary of the hostilities will suffice for the nonce. Although bureaucrats are reputed to abhor a vacuum. Ostensibly concerned that the oil companies were taking unfair advantage. Since large oil companies are not in business to lose money. A wholesaler could choose between paying a refund based on a retrospective GPM of 13 per gallon for the injunction period or paying one based on whatever profit margin would have allowed it to achieve an annual return on assets equal to the average return on assets for the electric utility industry. The wholesalers were not mollified. It revivified the court action originally instituted by the oil companies and filed a motion for restitution seeking an award equal to the excess profits that the wholesalers would have been forced to disgorge 2We refer to the three oil companies collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/05-5388a.pdf">O:\SCHNABEL\2006-04 CASES\COBELL V. NORTON\COBEL OPINION DRAFT 7 FORMATTED (WITH MIKE MCGRAIL'S CHANGES).WPD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Elliott H. Because we conclude the court's broad grant of equitable relief was an abuse of discretion. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Interior are currently the designated trustee delegates for the Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust. Interior is responsible for executing most of the government's trust duties. Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is responsible for managing the lands held by the trust. That some of Interior's employees were thwarting efforts to test the security of Interior's IT systems. The district court had erroneously shifted the burden of persuasion to Interior to show why disconnection was unnecessary. As material facts were in dispute and almost nine months had passed since a previous hearing. The class members argue that Interior's arguments are foreclosed by Cobell XII. We are not bound by the later opinions. The alleged conflict is illusory. Though some degree of confusion is understandable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-5343a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were John L. With him on the briefs were Joel I. Were on the brief of certain States as amici curiae. An operating system is. Windows 95 is an operating system that integrates a DOS shell with a graphical user interface. Each operating system's APIs are unique. Install operating systems and other software that they have licensed from vendors such as Microsoft. Marginal production costs are negligible. Most relevant here is s IV(E) of the decree: Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon: (i) the licensing of any other Covered Product. The Internet is a global network that links smaller net works of computers. The World Wide Web (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CC48F105ABA72EA88256F40005E99EC/$file/0355858.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Does not bar the issuance of a preliminary injunction freezing assets where fraudulent conveyance or equitable causes of action are pleaded in the bankruptcy context. An involuntary bankruptcy case was filed against Focus Media. John Pringle was appointed trustee. On the same day that the complaint was filed. These proofs of service reflect that service on Rubin was made
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-5343b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were John L. With him on the briefs were Joel I. Were on the brief of certain States as amici curiae. An operating system is. Windows 95 is an operating system that integrates a DOS shell with a graphical user interface. Each operating system's APIs are unique. Install operating systems and other software that they have licensed from vendors such as Microsoft. Marginal production costs are negligible. Most relevant here is s IV(E) of the decree: Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon: (i) the licensing of any other Covered Product. The Internet is a global network that links smaller net works of computers. The World Wide Web (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0409p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs allege in their complaint and amended complaint that they were transferred from Atkinson to another elementary school in the same district in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights and that the last minute hearing violated their right to due process. We now REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs' transfers were in retaliation for their protected speech. Factual History Plaintiffs were school teachers at Atkinson. Stating that they were neither dedicated leaders nor supportive of the administration. That they resisted positive change.1 Exacerbating Atkinson's academic woes were its divisive faculty and its glaring student discipline problem. Because the Atkinson faculty was not cohesive. Too many academic decisions were made individually rather than collectively as an institution. Were vocal in their complaints about discipline2 and took action by compiling signatures on a petition that proposed changes to Atkinson's discipline policies.3 Under Principal LaDita Howard's (
</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.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/94-4241.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 158(d). I. The facts of this case are undisputed. A foreclosure sale was scheduled for December 16. The Trustee filed two concurrent motions in the bankruptcy court that are the subject of this appeal. Or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. 11 U.S.C. 105(a). The Trustee and State Bank stipulated at the hearing that the amount of State Bank's claim was $148. That the sum of secured and unsecured claims was $207. There was substantial equity in the property in excess of State Bank's $148. Once the automatic stay was again in place. State Bank asserted that because the value of the property was $170. There was not sufficient equity in it to merit enjoining the foreclosure sale to allow the Trustee to liquidate the property. State Bank contended that the bankruptcy court's finding in the order lifting the stay that the Debtors acted in bad faith was res judicata in the current proceeding. The question of determining value is difficult because it seems to me that there are some questions of credibility on both appraisals. . . . .
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3779_031.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That motion was denied. Facts Spamhaus is a non profit company limited by guarantee and organized under the laws of the United Kingdom. It is an internet watchdog group in the business of identifying and blocking internet
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2326B.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for the United States appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2326.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for the United States appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/01-12379.opn.html">BAILEY V. GULF COAST TRANSP., INC. (1/29/2002, NO. 01-12379)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges<A NAME=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1238.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When functional the plant was powered by water from a canal. The requirement had no practical significance when the plant was not being used. That is. Decided to put the plant back into service and so it became concerned about the state of the canal and in particular feared that the canal's wall was about to collapse. Rent that the power company refused to pay until the canal was repaired. The judgment seems (the reason for this hedge will appear momentarily) to include an order injunctive in character that entitles the power company to enter upon the canal company's property for the purpose of repairing the canal wall and to obtain a lien on the property for the cost of the repair. We must satisfy ourselves that we have jurisdiction. The purpose is to provide a solid foundation for any subsequent efforts to enforce the injunction by contempt proceedings or otherwise. It is also to spare the courts and the litigants a struggle over the injunction's scope and meaning. That No. 01 1238 3 prohibiting vague injunctions is also necessary to protect
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/01-12379.opn.html">BAILEY V. GULF COAST TRANSP., INC. (1/29/2002, NO. 01-12379)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges<A NAME=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1236_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the union has not shown that it will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction. Bellon was hired to remove the road deck from the MacArthur bridge. For reasons that are not clear from the record. The agreement provides that the union will maintain a list of eligible laborers. Bellon hired 1 We do not comment on whether the oral amendments were effective. We assume without deciding that the union's account of the oral amendments is accurate. That it will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction. It is not entitled to a preliminary injunction under either analysis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002453.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200311235.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were selling
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="714"></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="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/00-13481.man.html">MILAN EXPRESS V. AVERITT EXPRESS (6/19/2001, NO. 00-13481)<BR></A><BR>
Have been involved in protracted litigation. The opposing companies argued that the proposed transfer was merely a pretense for avoiding the jurisdiction of the Alabama Public Service Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></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-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-4616.man.html">TEFEL V. RENO (7/14/1999, NO. 98-4616)<BR></A><BR>
(2) the district court's order denying the INS' motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction.</P> <P> Appellees/Plaintiffs (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-4616.man.html">TEFEL V. RENO (7/14/1999, NO. 98-4616)<BR></A><BR>
(2) the district court's order denying the INS' motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction.</P> <P> Appellees/Plaintiffs (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/00-13481.man.html">MILAN EXPRESS V. AVERITT EXPRESS (6/19/2001, NO. 00-13481)<BR></A><BR>
Have been involved in protracted litigation. The opposing companies argued that the proposed transfer was merely a pretense for avoiding the jurisdiction of the Alabama Public Service Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/993064P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court denied the motion for class certification on the grounds that (1) the proposed class definition of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2485.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction issued pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/951565P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Ernest Smith and John Stewart were both inmates at the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. While they were asleep in their beds. They were brutally stabbed by fellow inmate Robert Lewis. Smith was seriously injured. These inmates were all incarcerated together in Barracks No. 8. Inmates in the open barracks are free to move about the entire room. Sitting by designation. 3 No. 8 housed 86 general population inmates at the time of this incident and was not staffed with a correctional officer inside the room. Barracks Nos. 5 and 6 are similarly organized and similarly lack the presence of a supervising correctional officer inside them. Contending that the prison officials were not complying with the requirements imposed in a prior case. Who was a current resident of the Cummins Unit. The district court determined that Rudd was not entitled to a jury trial on his equitable claim for an injunction and held a five day bench trial. The district court also determined that the prison officials were inadequately staffing the open barracks and had done nothing to alleviate the dangers posed by this shortcoming.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1366.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for plaintiffs appellants George C. Plumb & Murray were on brief for intervenor appellant Ralph A. Were on brief for defendants/appellees/ cross appellants Rodney P. Hanson & DeTroy were on brief for defendants/appellees/cross appellants Richard E. Who were employees or former employees of Allied Capital Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="706"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1162p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have moved to dissolve three consent judgments enforcing orders of the National Labor Relations Board and to vacate four consent contempt adjudications for violating the consent judgments. We will deny the motion for the reasons that follow. Some indication of the background of the order can be gleaned from the Board's Findings of Fact that the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was engaged in the manufacture and sale of tires at Pottstown. An object thereof is forcing or requiring . . . any . . . person . . . to cease doing business with . . . any other person. This court was again presented with a Decision and Order of the NLRB reflecting a settlement stipulation and a consent judgment. Specifically prohibited was any action encouraging employees of Gulf. BCTC stipulated that it was in civil contempt of the judgments entered March 4. The NLRB once again found itself faced with charges that BCTC was responsible for secondary boycotts. The General Counsel took the position before the Board
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/29D56C277CF48D238825734F0059E271/$file/0617288.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that when a debtor applies for a 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) preliminary injunction to stay a proceeding in which the debtor is not a party. I. BACKGROUND Hoffman is the founder and a major shareholder of both Indivos and Excel. One of the main purposes of these agreements was to separate Hoffman from the management of Indivos. Which was controlled by Hoffman and separately owned Indivos shares. Was not a party to the Settlement Agreement or the Pledge Agreement. Excel was a party to the Voting Trust and Standstill Agreement. Including whether their positions on patent ownership were taken in good faith. Ruling that all of the patents Excel accused Indivos of infringing were actually owned by Indivos. The parties were attempting to schedule additional hearing dates to finish the proceeding. Hoffman's bankruptcy petition was dismissed in September 2004. Hoffman argued to the arbitrator that the stay established by Excel's bankruptcy petition applied to Indivos' claims against him because those claims were intertwined with Indivos' claims against Excel.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991598.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As follows: On pages 1 and 2 the spelling of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1830.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Moring LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043592p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon to decide whether a district court has the power under the Federal Food. Because a district court's equitable powers in such a situation are broad. We hold that an order of restitution is properly within the jurisdiction of the court. Andrew Lane is the president. Three products are the subject of this action: (1) BeneFin. Whose main ingredient is arabinoxylan. Lane actively promoted BeneFin and SkinAnswer as potential treatments for cancer and that he was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F9697D946CA355A188256FB2007FCE0D/$file/0355754.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to review the district court's preliminary injunction order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Only one is directly relevant here: a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200112379.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM: The issue in this case is whether the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). BACKGROUND John Bailey and other taxi cab drivers were terminated shortly after suing Gulf Coast Transportation. Including a claim for retaliation and a motion for a preliminary injunction to reinstate the drivers who were terminated and to enjoin Gulf Coast from further retaliatory conduct. [T]he evidence supporting the substantive merits of the requested preliminary injunction is quite persuasive. Were preliminary injunctive relief available to a private litigant in an FLSA case. The defendants' conduct is plainly retaliatory. The drivers claim they were employees. While Gulf Coast claims they were independent contractors and were terminated because they
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/013636.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Classification of its claims in the Belgian proceedings and ordering that these issues be determined exclusively by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code was issued without consideration of all relevant legal principles. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. S 158(a) and we have jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. Have applied an abuse of discretion standard to entry of an anti suit injunction as 3 well.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/062658P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Goss was the major manufacturer of large printing presses in the United States for more than a century and enjoyed dominance in the United States printing press market into the late 1990s. A clawback statute is a countermeasure that enables defendants who have paid a multiple damage judgment in a foreign country to recover the multiple portion of that judgment from the plaintiff. Canada that allows companies which have paid treble damages under United States antitrust law judgments to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/02-7104.htm">02-7104 -- ALLOWAY V. HODGE -- 08/13/2003<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendants in this case appeal from the district court's order denying their motion to terminate an injunction entered under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The facts leading up to the district court's issuance of injunctive relief are well known to the parties and recounted in detail in the court's September 21. He was not allowed to continue with his prescribed treatment after transferring to his current facility. So there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of this claim. There is no dispute that plaintiff suffers from serious liver disease. They have failed to articulate the medical rationale for their denial of these treatments which were allowed at a previous DOC facility. <p> Aplt. Stating that plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if he is not allowed to continue the prescribed treatments and that the injunction will not cause damage to defendants or be adverse to the public interest. The court concluded
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1382.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clapp</SPAN> were on brief for appellant. <P> <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9E259207B0F126FA88256E5A00707BEC/$file/0015128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ellett seeks declaratory and injunctive relief barring Goldberg from collecting certain pre petition state income tax obligations that were allegedly discharged in his bankruptcy proceeding. Ellett's Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in April 1995 and was completed two years later. The FTB notice stated that such obligations were not discharged in bankruptcy and that collection action was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/60ed92e6d721f94188256e5a00707c76/$FILE/0015128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 9033. That is. Hence that Walker and In re Collins are 11440 no longer good law. The definition of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CEE298DF6BE46CF088256AB4006D9C29/$file/0015128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 9033. That is. Hence that Walker and In re Collins are 11440 no longer good law. The definition of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/60ED92E6D721F94188256E5A00707C76/$file/0015128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 9033. That is. Hence that Walker and In re Collins are 11440 no longer good law. The definition of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/04571662aae1564488256a8b005a3339/$FILE/0015128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ellett seeks declaratory and injunctive relief barring Goldberg from collecting certain pre petition state income tax obligations that were allegedly discharged in his bankruptcy proceeding. Ellett's Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in April 1995 and was completed two years later. The FTB notice stated that such obligations were not discharged in bankruptcy and that collection action was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/04571662AAE1564488256A8B005A3339/$file/0015128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ellett seeks declaratory and injunctive relief barring Goldberg from collecting certain pre petition state income tax obligations that were allegedly discharged in his bankruptcy proceeding. Ellett's Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in April 1995 and was completed two years later. The FTB notice stated that such obligations were not discharged in bankruptcy and that collection action was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/cee298df6be46cf088256ab4006d9c29/$FILE/0015128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 9033. That is. Hence that Walker and In re Collins are 11440 no longer good law. The definition of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/9e259207b0f126fa88256e5a00707bec/$FILE/0015128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ellett seeks declaratory and injunctive relief barring Goldberg from collecting certain pre petition state income tax obligations that were allegedly discharged in his bankruptcy proceeding. Ellett's Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in April 1995 and was completed two years later. The FTB notice stated that such obligations were not discharged in bankruptcy and that collection action was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/misc%20dkt-765.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the petition for writ of mandamus was James A. Seeking to establish a right to indemnification in the event Videotek was held liable to TLC. Seeking a declaration that TLC's asserted patents were invalid. Alleging that Gennum was liable for direct and contributory infringement of the four asserted patents. The district court entered an order that had the effect of significantly reducing the amount of damages TLC would be able to recover from Gennum if infringement were found. Maintained that it was still entitled to a trial by jury. Noting that Gennum was seeking to invalidate the patents. TLC argued that a declaratory judgment action to invalidate a patent is an action to which the right of trial by jury attaches. This court held that there is no right to a jury trial when the only remedy sought by the plaintiff patentee is an injunction and the defendant has asserted patent invalidity as an affirmative defense. The court noted that Tegal was not directly on point because in that case the issue of invalidity was asserted only as an affirmative defense and not as an independent claim.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYxMTEgdyAybmQgRXJyYXRhLnBkZg==/02-6111%20w%202nd%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that plaintiffs' possessory land claim is subject to the defense of laches and conclude that the claim must be barred on that basis. Circuit Judge: We are here confronted by land claims of historic vintage the wrongs alleged occurred over two hundred years ago. This action is itself twenty five years old which we must adjudicate against a legal backdrop that has evolved since the District Court's rulings. Determined (1) that treaties between the Cayuga Nation and the State of New York in 1795 and 1807 were not properly ratified by the federal government and were thus invalid under the Nonintercourse Act. That plaintiffs were entitled to about $211 million in prejudgment interest. We conclude that the possessory land claim alleged here is the type of claim to which a laches defense can be applied. We further conclude that plaintiffs' claim is barred by laches. Historical Background Plaintiffs allege that from time immemorial until the late eighteenth century the Cayuga Nation owned and occupied approximately three million acres of land in what is now New York State.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYxMTFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6111_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that plaintiffs' possessory land claim is subject to the defense of laches and conclude that the claim must be barred on that basis. Circuit Judge: We are here confronted by land claims of historic vintage the wrongs alleged occurred over two hundred years ago. This action is itself twenty five years old which we must adjudicate against a legal backdrop that has evolved since the District Court's rulings. Determined (1) that treaties between the Cayuga Nation and the State of New York in 1795 and 1807 were not properly ratified by the federal government and were thus invalid under the Nonintercourse Act. That plaintiffs were entitled to about $211 million in prejudgment interest. We conclude that the possessory land claim alleged here is the type of claim to which a laches defense can be applied. We further conclude that plaintiffs' claim is barred by laches. The Cayuga Nation owned and occupied approximately three million acres of land in what is now New York State. Successive versions of the Act have been continuously in force from that time to the present day.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200412/03-5262a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></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-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/032329P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These consolidated appeals involve the intersection of an issue that is subject to federal regulation. With an issue that is subject to tribal control. A Tribal Constitution approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1937 provides that the Tribe is to be governed by an elected Tribal Council. Members of the Tribe who were dissatisfied with the conduct of the Elected Council alleged illegal conduct by the Elected Council and circulated petitions to seek a special election to recall the entire council. The Elected Council claims that some of the signatures were forged. The Elected Council does not claim to have conducted an investigation to determine if there were 243 valid signatures. The Elected Council states only that it was satisfied that the irregularities were sufficient not to warrant a recall election. 2 Because the Tribal Constitution grants to the Tribal Council dispute resolution powers and the duty to call a special election. There is no separate Tribal body to which the petitioners may appeal the Elected Council's action other than the Elected Council itself.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/04/992376P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The removal of Nebraska from further HHS was previously known as the Nebraska Department of Heath. The department is referred to as HHS throughout this opinion. 21 supervision of the licensing process and appointment of a third party to exercise supervision. This appeal by Nebraska is from a preliminary injunction issued by the district court2 which enjoined the state parties from continuing with the administrative proceeding related to denial of the license for the disposal facility.3 We affirm. Which was passed as original legislation by each of the states and by Congress. Also pending in this court are appeals by Nebraska. The state selected as the host for a disposal site is required
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0225p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The United States was engaged in a criminal investigation of Plaintiff Steven Warshak and the company he owned. (2)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/011943.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary election is (as of the time of this opinion) scheduled to occur on June 5. We have. Will hereinafter. Named as Defendants are: (1) the Apportionment Commission. We will hereinafter refer to these parties collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E69A3C8451B28902882571610057843B/$file/0516504.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). In which Andina was substituted for its predecessor in interest. Both the 1987 Agreement and the 1978 Agreement have the same forum selection and choiceof law clauses in favor of California: This agreement is entered into under the laws of the State of California. Including whether Gallo had delivered three shipments late and whether Andina was an exclusive distributor of Gallo products. Andina was allowed to choose this guardian. Andina was required to provide affidavits of two people who could swear to Yepez's reliability and could recommend her. Which was issued by the Ecuadorian military dictatorship in 1976 and had been repealed in 1997. The decree was intended to protect Ecuadorians who acted as agents. The Decree stated that any legal action brought under the law was to be heard by a judge at the Ecuadorian company's main residence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/87AB9C5A13E7887988256F040055D878/$file/0235460.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is the question that prompted us to go en banc in Gilbertson v. Both opinions have been vacated. Was a land surveyor whose Oregon license to survey was revoked and not reinstated by the State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying (the Board). We conclude that Younger principles apply to actions at law as well as for injunctive or declaratory relief because a determination that the federal plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated would have the same practical effect as a 1 Younger v. Federal courts should not dismiss actions where damages are at issue. Damages actions should be stayed until the state proceedings are completed. That direct interference is a threshold requirement. Indicate that Younger principles apply here because the state proceeding was pending at the time Gilbertson filed his federal action. It was in the nature of a judicial proceeding that implicates important state interests. The district court should have deferred to the Oregon proceeding unless that proceeding was conducted in bad faith or some other exception to Younger exists.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0ODctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5487-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Some have said. Is an engine of technological development. The telephonic system at dispute in this appeal is an example of that phenomenon it was designed and implemented to ensure that consumers paid charges for accessing pornography and other adult entertainment. The system identified the user of an online adult entertainment service by the telephone line used to access that service and then billed the telephone line subscriber 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 for the cost of that service as if it was a charge for an international phone call to Madagascar. It had a problem as well: It was possible for someone to access an adult entertainment service over a telephone line without authorization from the telephone line subscriber who understood herself contractually bound to pay all telephone charges. If the computer was connected by modem to a telephone line. Charges for accessing the adult entertainment appeared on bills sent to the consumers whose telephone lines were used. This billing system did not have a mechanism to ensure that a telephone line subscriber authorized the computer user to access a given adult entertainment service.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/39CB2AE80E0EAB7488256A9C005A88E8/$file/0016708.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Solano is a medium security prison about thirty five miles southwest of Sacramento. 800 are enrolled in the prison's work incentive program. Being late or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021483.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
E One's AMERICAN EAGLE mark
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A108E25BD9F7F07E88256E5A00707C18/$file/0016708.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Solano is a medium security prison about thirty five miles southwest of Sacramento. 800 are enrolled in the prison's work incentive program. Being late or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/962705P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
28 U.S.C. § 2283. that this relief is improper under both the Eleventh Amendment and the We disagree. Conclude that Construing injunctive relief is proper in the circumstances of this case. relief. On the last occasion during which these parties were before us. We stated that it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1350.html">JANE DOE V. U.S., ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief was <u>Vanessa Soriano Power</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify'><span style='font size:12.0pt. Argued for defendants appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Mso bidi font family:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510235.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Based on a determination that none of the claims involved
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/01-14182.opn.html">PREFERRED SITES, L.L.C. V. TROUP COUNTY (7/10/2002, NO. 01-14182)<BR></A><BR>
Appellee alleged the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. Which typically are used to provide cellular telephone service. Which is located in Troup County. Appellee's application was required by the Troup County Zoning Ordinance. Were submitted to the Board. A set of blank lines to write in an explanation of the proposal for which the petition was being circulated. Only two of the petitions were complete. Indicating both the purpose of the petition was to oppose the tower and the proposal for which the petition was circulated was to object to the construction of the tower. The third petition merely noted the location of the proposed tower and indicated the proposal for which the petition was circulated was to object to the construction of the tower. Appellant claimed Appellee's action was untimely filed and Appellee had failed to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The district court held Appellee's action was filed within the statute of limitations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-14182.opn.html">PREFERRED SITES, L.L.C. V. TROUP COUNTY (7/10/2002, NO. 01-14182)<BR></A><BR>
Appellee alleged the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. Which typically are used to provide cellular telephone service. Which is located in Troup County. Appellee's application was required by the Troup County Zoning Ordinance. Were submitted to the Board. A set of blank lines to write in an explanation of the proposal for which the petition was being circulated. Only two of the petitions were complete. Indicating both the purpose of the petition was to oppose the tower and the proposal for which the petition was circulated was to object to the construction of the tower. The third petition merely noted the location of the proposed tower and indicated the proposal for which the petition was circulated was to object to the construction of the tower. Appellant claimed Appellee's action was untimely filed and Appellee had failed to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The district court held Appellee's action was filed within the statute of limitations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4097.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. The group insurance was sponsored by her employer. Thus review is de novo. All well pleaded allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The only issue is whether ERISA's limitation of remedies to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/93-4844.opa.html">LEVI STRAUSS V. SUNRISE INTL. TRADING<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Levi Strauss v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction and asset freeze in a suit brought under the Lanham Act. Manufactures blue jeans which are sold in the United States and abroad.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992485.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a high tech business engaged in designing. Jarrard was paid $300. Her compensation was in the range of $500. Was a competitor or a client of the Company. Was a client of the Company. The agreement was. Was stated by CIENA on belief to be worth in excess of $5 million. An assertion with which Jarrard has not taken issue except to note that stock options in a start up company are often difficult to value. Sycamore Networks' stated mission is to improve the optical network infrastructure available to the telecommunications industry. (2) that Jarrard misappropriated and will continue to misappropriate CIENA's trade secrets in performing her new job with Sycamore Networks. CIENA notified Jarrard of this action on the date that the complaint was filed Friday.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/93-4844.opa.html">LEVI STRAUSS V. SUNRISE INTL. TRADING<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Levi Strauss v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction and asset freeze in a suit brought under the Lanham Act. Manufactures blue jeans which are sold in the United States and abroad.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-14141.man.html">MORRISON V. ALLSTATE INDEM. CO. (9/26/2000, NO. 99-14141)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914141.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This putative diversity class action suit arises out of a dispute over insurance coverage for the diminished value of a vehicle after it sustains physical damage and is repaired. We remand the case to the district court to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove that jurisdiction is present. Listed below are the named plaintiffs and their respective insurers: Plaintiff Rex T. Who are all citizens of Florida. The policy for Allstate Indemnity Company involved in this case provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914141.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This putative diversity class action suit arises out of a dispute over insurance coverage for the diminished value of a vehicle after it sustains physical damage and is repaired. We remand the case to the district court to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove that jurisdiction is present. Listed below are the named plaintiffs and their respective insurers: Plaintiff Defendant Rex T. Who are all citizens of Florida. The policy for Allstate Indemnity Company involved in this case provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-14141.man.html">MORRISON V. ALLSTATE INDEM. CO. (9/26/2000, NO. 99-14141)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/001389.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Two policyholders who were members of the class appeal the district court's order enjoining them from prosecuting suits they filed in state court in Florida based upon policies that were eligible for inclusion in the nationwide class. We will affirm. 2 I. The class is comprised of [over 8 million] Prudential policyholders who allegedly were the victims of fraudulent and misleading sales practices employed by Prudential's sales force. We will only set forth the background of the underlying class action here to the extent that it places our inquiry in context and assists our discussion. 2. Pa. 1997)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/97a1502p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse and remand. I. Appellants are trustees of the Anthracite Health and Welfare Fund and the fund itself (collectively. Is a general partnership consisting of George Huss. Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation. Huss Industries are all appellees. The court nonetheless held that the Fund had failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm if temporary relief were not granted. The district court further indicated that Beaverbrook might not be obligated to make interim payments when the merits of the Fund's claim were considered if Beaverbrook showed that it would suffer irreparable harm as a result. The court declined to rule on whether all of the defendants were employers for purposes of MPPAA and. Employers are required to make interim payments. So the Fund need show only that payments were not made when demanded. The Fund contends that under Flying Tiger the court must decide whether all of the appellees are considered employers for purposes of MPPAA. The issues appellant raises are legal questions over which we exercise plenary review.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-2378_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is scheduled to be executed by the State of Indiana before sunrise on June 15. Is here for the fourth time. We OE This decision was originally released as an unpublished order. While challenges to his conviction and sentence have been going on for over 16 years. Was also an intervenor in the Timberlake civil suit. Those motions were denied. This protocol is the same one used by Indiana to execute Mr. Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:06 cv 1859 RLY WTL Entry Discussing Michael Lambert's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Michael Lambert (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1819954AA8E290CA8825701A004C6819/$file/0356135.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The banners are located so that they are visible to customers of businesses that deal with certain contractors who do not have union contracts. While the banners are displayed. Local Union Number 1506 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0080p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court's decision is AFFIRMED. Construction was completed. The bridge and its approaches were rebuilt. Certain rail lines were surplus. The rail line crossing the bridge was one such line. The rail line spanning the bridge was thus abandoned.1 Five years later. The bridge's approaches were removed. Of which he was president. Their suit sought a declaratory judgment of their right to insulate the bridge from The record is not clear on what exactly was abandoned. One way to read the record indicates that only the rail line was abandoned. This amb iguity does not affect our resolution of the case. 1 Because the sale contra ct was co ntingent upon the gra nt of certain perm its from the City and the Wa terfront Developm ent Corporation. The sale may not have been consumm ated. The court reasoned that: (1) the bridge is not in interstate commerce. This was no bar to condemnation because the City and the Waterfront Development Corporation could condemn the franchises and pay the plaintiffs reasonable compensation for them.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1764.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
L.L.P. were on brief for defendants Douglas L. The question presented on this appeal is whether a state plan deregulating the electric utility industry in New Hampshire was properly enjoined by the district court pending trial on the merits. The injunction was originally obtained by Public Service Company of New Hampshire (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAwNDcgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-0047%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/024582p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Class members were entitled to opt out at various stages. Those who chose to opt out initially were freed to pursue their remedies elsewhere. Those who did not opt out at the beginning were afforded opportunities to opt out
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1511.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BMWED is an unincorporated labor association and the collective bargaining representative for those UP employees who maintain. Have. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0432n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Last time it was here. Before us now is Deja Vu's appeal from the district court's decision dissolving a permanent injunction which had enjoined the enforcement of Metropolitan Code of Laws Chapter 6.54
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56EE8299939A3A9688256C6000730733/$file/0017222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Walters is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). **Asa Hutchinson is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). ***John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Chief Judge: This is an appeal from a permanent injunction entered to protect First Amendment rights. Where the basis for the government's action is solely the physician's professional
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAwNDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0047_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAwNDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0047_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/05-7181b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Thomas A. With her on the brief was Matthew H. Ellipso alleged that Mann Tech was selling those shares and diverting the proceeds. We affirm the district court's order because the appellants have not shown that the district court abused its discretion. That it was fraudulently induced to enter a loan agreement with the appellants and sought various remedies including rescission of the loan. Ellipso was struggling financially and hired Robert Patterson to secure financing from investors. Nor Registry Solutions have appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction. 1 3 Patterson did. The ICOHA shares were valued at about $180. While he was acting as Ellipso's agent in securing the financing from Mann Tech. Sometime thereafter (the record is not clear) Mann Tech sold off nearly another 453. The record is not clear as to the precise amounts or accounts). Mann Tech counters that it was entitled to sell the shares because their value had fallen below $10. (2) there was a likely threat of irreparable injury to Ellipso from Mann Tech's further sale of the ICOHA shares because they were Mann Technologies' only substantial assets.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/06A5D5A139A7477B8825706F000D1421/$file/0535569.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I The Columbia River is the fourth largest river on the North American continent. The Snake River is the Columbia River's main tributary. Salmon runs have declined to a small percentage of their historic abundance. There are now thirteen species of Columbia. Willamette River salmon and steelhead that are protected by the Endangered Species Act.2 The district court found in this case that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-6101.htm">02-6101 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. KUYKENDALL -- 06/10/2004<BR></A><BR>
We agree with the panel and the district court that the underlying proceedings were correctly classified as civil contempt proceedings. Before that appeal was heard the parties entered into a settlement that was eventually incorporated into a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-1284.htm">99-1284 -- KIKUMURA V. HURLEY -- 03/09/2001<BR></A><BR>
Because the district court committed legal error in holding Plaintiff did not have a substantial likelihood of success on his RFRA claim and would not be irreparably harmed absent an injunction. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</strong> <p> Plaintiff appellant Yu Kikumura is an inmate in the United States Penitentiary. Defendant John Hurley is Warden at the Penitentiary. Gallegos is an Associate Warden at the Penitentiary. Who is originally from Japan. Rickard's request to visit Plaintiff was denied by prison officials. <p> During the next several months Plaintiff. Defendant Hurley then sent letters to Plaintiff and Yasutake explaining that the requests were denied because they did not meet the criteria for pastoral visits established by Bureau of Prisons (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/96-2121.htm">96-2121 -- BUCHWALD V. UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE -- 10/20/1998<BR></A><BR>
It will favor long term residents over short term residents in its admissions process. Were not entitled to qualified immunity. The questions before us on appeal are: (1) does Ms. Buchwald have standing to seek the injunction entered by the district court in its second order. (2) did the district court err in finding that no defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. (3) did the district court err in finding that Klepper and Atencio are not entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities? We reverse in part and affirm in part. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C0ED6058FC7BF228825704A00770660/$file/0535569.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I The Columbia River is the fourth largest river on the North American continent. The Snake River is the Columbia River's main tributary. Salmon runs have declined to a small percentage of their historic abundance. There are now thirteen species of Columbia. Willamette River salmon and steelhead that are protected by the Endangered Species Act.2 The district court found in this case that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5212a.html">U.S. V. MICROSOFT<BR></A><BR>
Holley argued the causes for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5212a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were John L. Prabhu were on the brief of amici curiae The Association for Competitive Technology and Computing Technology Industry Association in support of appellant. Burton was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism in support of appellant. Getman was on the brief for amicus curiae Association for Objective Law in support of appellant. With them on the brief were A. Naughton were on the brief for amici curiae America Online. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Lee A. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Carl Lundgren. There are three principal aspects of this appeal. Because the substantive provisions of the order are flawed. Microsoft asserts that the trial judge committed ethical violations by engaging in impermissible ex parte contacts and making inappropriate public comments on the merits of the case while it was pending. The oral arguments before this court we find that some but not all of Microsoft's liability challenges have merit. There are several reasons supporting this conclusion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0162p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Philip Ray Workman is scheduled to be executed by the State of Tennessee on May 9. Even though the components of the procedure that Workman challenges today have been in existence in the main since 1998. Workman's prospects for success on the merits also are dim. Several state and federal courts have upheld this same three drug protocol (including the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2005). Workman acknowledges that the new procedure is only slightly different from the old procedure. The State has done in reviewing and revising the procedure shows that it is trying to prevent Workman from suffering any pain during his execution. Not that it is trying or willing to allow a procedure that imposes unnecessary and wanton pain. Oliver stopped the defendant as he was exiting. Which also was unsuccessful. A brief review of the history of Tennessee's execution procedures is in order. Quickly anesthetizes the inmate and is sufficient to cause death in the absence of the two additional chemicals in the protocol. Pancuronium bromide is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2173.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: p.9. P.C. were on brief for Monarch Life Insurance Company. P.C. were on brief for Ropes & Gray. We now affirm the district court on the ground that Monarch Life is collaterally estopped from asserting a state court challenge to the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to enter the permanent injunction incorporated in the confirmed reorganization plan. This Order constitutes an injunction against all persons (other than the FDIC as Receiver) from taking any of the following actions (other than an 2Ropes & Gray was scheduled as a creditor in the chapter 11 proceeding. None are material to this appeal. 5Section 105(a) provides in relevant part:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032760p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over Honeywell's consolidated appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. 3 I. The piling of the waste created a land mass (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/72CE026C1B6B0DBE88256C3E0057E8AD/$file/9935472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CV 88 00379 BJR OPINION *James Ziglar is substituted for his predecessor Doris Meissner. P. 43(c)(2). **John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor Janet Reno. Powell is substituted for his predecessor Madeline Albright. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellees are illegal immigrants and organizations assisting such immigrants who seek to legalize their status under a legalization program in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0426p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs asked the state defendants to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1933.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kaitz</SPAN> were on brief. Coleman</SPAN> were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1509.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1994 is corrected as follows: On page 2. Meyer & Solomon were on brief. Clarifying the source and extent of bankruptcy courts' powers to manage the estates of debtors whose fates are intertwined with the affairs of failed financial institutions. Background Background The facts essential to an understanding of this appeal are not disputed. The debt (much of which remains unpaid) is evidenced by three promissory notes. The notes are cross collateralized and secured by mortgages encumbering all three pieces of property. First Service was declared insolvent. The FDIC was appointed as liquidating agent (and thereby became the owner and holder of the notes). The appeal (which we shall term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2721.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. All public elementary schools are run by the Commonwealth's Department of Education. 2002 is described below.</P> <P> On August 14. He was twelve years old at the time and did not know how to read.</P> <P> In the summer before Joshua started second grade. Requested a certified sign language interpreter to assist Joshua in the classroom.<STRONG> </STRONG>Joshua's mother is a special education teacher. The administrative judge found that Joshua's need for a certified sign language interpreter was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1430p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will hold that the Freeze Order properly enjoined Jayne Kiesewetter from transferring or otherwise disposing of the assets she owned with William B. We will reverse the district court's waiver of the Rule 65 bond requirement because it did not make any findings as to the Beneficiaries' financial ability (or inability) to post the bond. We will reject the Kiesewetters' arguments that the asset freeze order was too broad and that it violated their due process rights. A. The Parties and the Underlying Litigation The parties to this appeal and the underlying litigation are all members of the same family. The first action was a demand for an accounting of their family's assets and is premised on various claims against Mr. Jr. are the daughters and son of Dr. and Mrs. Charles and Jonathan Elliott are the sons of Appellee Constance Elliott and the only grandchildren of Dr. and Mrs. Properties and accounts were handled and managed. Was Dr. and Mrs. Kiesewetter was liable to them for the value of their collective interests in those assets.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/05-5269a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Dennis M. The district court concluded that the federal government and its officers have been derelict in their duties.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3644.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs ask this Court to reverse the district court's determination that injunctive relief is not available for Fair Credit Reporting Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/062371P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were necessary to prevent the release of further contaminants into soil and groundwater. CBS contends that the injunction did not sufficiently specify which acts were required of it. That the evidence showed there was no need for MERA relief. That is. It was not preempted by MERA. 375 F.3d at 742 46. 2 On remand. The rationale for these specifications was that soil deeper than twelve feet and soil under the building was not immediately accessible to human or ecological
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=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 $1.00 each to the two students who would have been assigned to the school of their choice under the old system but for their race. While high school assignments are made on a citywide basis. Boston is divided into three Attendance Zones the North. These zones were drawn by the district court as part of its desegregation orders. The lines largely hew to major transportation routes to keep traditional neighborhoods intact as much as possible.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/00C7728F3E2605C088256F5D0003991B/$file/0215504.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: The first sentence of Section 1 at page 381 F.3d 896 is amended to read: The issuance of multi year special use permits to the commercial packers constitutes major federal action that significantly affects the environment and requires the agency to prepare a detailed EIS. Conclusion on page 905 is amended to read: We hold that the Wilderness Act imposes substantive requirements on an administering agency and that there are triable issues of fact regarding whether the Forest Service damaged the wilderness areas. BLACKWELL 16377 The last sentence of the Conclusion on page 905 is amended to read: We affirm the decision of the district court in granting the injunction. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations dedicated to conservation. Their standing to bring this action is uncontested. The case was referred to U.S. The named defendants are the Forest Service itself. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Have traditionally been used to access the wilderness areas.2 Commercial packstock operators provide the public with the opportunity to take guided trips into the wilderness areas.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1762.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 6. Carreras Rovira were on brief for appellants. Brooks & Smith were on brief for appellee. The Company and the Unions were parties to a collective bargaining agreement covering the Company's knit. It is enough for present purposes to say that the Company believes that no effective contract was adopted at that time or thereafter. Is currently in force. 2 2 On November 5. Its explanation for agreeing is that the contract that expired on February 29. The Unions learned that some of the Company's employees desired to decertify the Unions as the representative of the Barranquitas workers and were preparing to petition the National Labor Relations Board for a new election. In early December 1992 there was a strike and certain employees were disciplined by the Company for what it said was strike and picket line misconduct. The Company objected that there was no contract and thus no basis for arbitration of new disputes arising after February 29. The Company also sought a judicial stay of the arbitration while the contract issue was being determined by the court.
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are a collection of associations and individuals led by the American Civil Liberties Union. Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims. Of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002170.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(5) the Official Committee's motion to intervene should have been allowed. Pinewood is located in Sumter County. Is within 1200 feet of Lake Marion. Safety Kleen was required to apply for a new hazardous waste permit from DHEC. DHEC scheduled a public hearing and solicited comments on whether and under what conditions Safety Kleen was entitled to a final permit to operate Pinewood. It did not specify whether nonhazardous An acre foot is the volume of water necessary to cover one acre to a depth of one foot. It is equal to 43. Safety Kleen agreed not to apply for additional landfill space until Pinewood was within three years of reaching its capacity. Was not binding on either the hearing officer or the DHEC Board. Was prospective only. While Safety Kleen was not pleased with the Board's decision to reject the separate cap for nonhazardous waste. Safety Kleen estimated that Pinewood would have between four and one half to six years of unused space left under the permit. The Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the state Senate. 2 SAFETY KLEEN.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/974259P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Ronnie Randolph was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison. Randolph was initially incarcerated at Jefferson City Correctional Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055461p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before us for the second time on appeal. Holding that the relief the plaintiffs sought was not available to them. We will affirm. I We have previously set forth the basic facts in this litigation. A The plaintiffs are former employees of Paradyne Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971296.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Finding that the Act's purported abrogation of a state's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity was invalid under Seminole Tribe v. Relief was unavailable. We do not resolve the question whether the abrogation of sovereign immunity is valid or invalid. The Railroads' property was assessed on December 31. The tentative notices of the assessments were issued to the Railroads. Neither recodification was intended to make any substantive change to that section. Because both parties in their briefs and this Circuit in prior cases have done so. We will hereinafter refer to 49 U.S.C.§ 11501 as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/002458.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was unconstitutional. The District Court viewed Coltec as seeking to escape the effects of its earlier agreements in order to benefit from the ruling in Eastern and denied Coltec's attempt to reassert its constitutional claims or to have its liability for Coal Act premiums reduced to zero. The background of the Coal Act is thoroughly reviewed in Eastern Enterprises v. Coltec was assigned 249 retirees as of February 1. The first four counts of the complaint claimed that the Act was unconstitutional as applied to them under the Fifth Amendment's takings and due process clauses because the plaintiff companies had not signed the relevant agreements. The terms were established in a contemporaneous separate written agreement (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/97-6178.man.html">BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA V. SANDERS (4/13/1998, NO. 97-6178)<BR></A><BR>
The Sanderses were participants in a health benefits plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5051.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The court determined that there were issues of fact as to whether the contract modifications violated CICA. Judgment was entered on January 18. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). Which was intended to procure a computerized travel management system. Which was acquired by TRW in 1998. Which in turn was purchased by Northrop Grumman in 2002.1 The contract was a five year fixed price requirements contract. Such that the contractor would have to create interfaces with numerous other DOD software products and networks. Operational deployment of the system was to commence at the first DOD site in Defense Travel Region 6 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/97-6178.man.html">BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA V. SANDERS (4/13/1998, NO. 97-6178)<BR></A><BR>
The Sanderses were participants in a health benefits plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E8062E92D0210668825734D007E25AA/$file/0555852.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
** District Judge. *Dirk Kempthorne is substituted for his predecessor Gail Norton as Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Dennis Schramm is substituted for his predecessor Mary Martin as the Superintendent of the Mojave National Preserve. Including the land where the cross is situated violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Congress enacted a statute directing that the land on which the cross is situated be transferred to a private organization in exchange for a parcel of privately owned land located elsewhere in the Preserve. That land exchange is already in progress and would leave a little donut hole of land with a cross in the midst of a vast federal preserve. The issue we address today is whether the land exchange violates the district court's permanent injunction. BACKGROUND1 1 Further background detail is found in the district court's order and our prior opinion on the merits of the Establishment Clause challenge. Both the BLM and the NPS are federal agencies under the Department of the Interior (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0321p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 all commissioners of insurance or Mike Pickens is a defendant on ly in the action brought by First Tennessee Bank. Therefore is a party only to Appeal No. 03 5521. 1 The Honorable Gordon J. Who were sued in their official capacity as receivers for various insolvent insurance companies (collectively. Because it lacked jurisdiction or because it should have declined jurisdiction in its discretion. While at the same time controlling the unregistered brokerage that was supposedly investing the large cash reserves that insurance companies typically have on hand. He was funneling the money to overseas bank accounts. Frankel was the subject of a four month. Bank accounts used in Frankel's money laundering scheme were held by the insurance companies at both AmSouth. The Receivers argue that the Banks were negligent in not realizing the massive fraud that those accounts were being used to commit. The Receivers concluded they might have claims against AmSouth. That tolling agreement was extended six times. Negotiations were ongoing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/69B859C583974E9688256EFB00030A9C/$file/0215504.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations dedicated to conservation. Their standing to bring this action is uncontested. The case was referred to U.S. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The named defendants are the Forest Service itself. Have traditionally been used to access the wilderness areas.2 Commercial packstock operators provide the public with the opportunity to take guided trips into the wilderness areas. The John Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness Areas are located within the Inyo and Sierra National Forests. Carrying only a sackful of bread with a little tea and sugar and thus was independent and free. Now that trails or carriage roads lead out of the (Yosemite) Valley in almost every direction it is easy to take a pack animal. Some trailheads have daily quotas that are determined by capacity limits for wilderness zones. The amount of wilderness use the commercial operators are allowed is dictated by
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/981285P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PICA is a nonprofit corporation providing Head Start education and day care services to Hennepin County (Minneapolis). Was a leader in the Union's organizing campaign. The record is silent as to whether the Union resumed its organizing campaign in the 1997 98 school year or thereafter. § 10(j) is a limited exception to the federal policy against labor injunctions. It is reserved for
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-2658_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plant at which it slaughters the horses is in Illinois. It is considered a delicacy in Europe and Cavel exports its entire output. 225 ILCS * The appellants' motion for an injunction pending appeal was decided in a brief order (Chief Judge Easterbrook dissenting) with a notation that opinions explaining the ground for the order and the dissent would follow. The opinions are being released in typescript. Or accept any horse meat if that person knows or should know that the horse meat will be used for human consumption.
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-2658_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plant at which it slaughters the horses is in Illinois. It is considered a delicacy in Europe and Cavel exports its entire output. Or accept any horse meat if that person knows or should know that the horse meat will be used for human consumption.
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313671.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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/4DF1F5195513ED3A88256CDE00819F03/$file/0255883.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Many of which were never presented to the district court. All are without merit and we affirm. The background of this case is long and colorful. Various facial cosmetic surgeries were documented and billed as procedures to correct deviated septums. Breast implants were billed as biopsies. The fraud was aided by patient recruiters who sought patients. From all over the country and were paid a fee per patient. Haya's now ex husband Ezeckiel Zilka was a surgeon at several of the clinics during the time these fraudulent acts occurred. Alleging that she was involved in the fraud scheme as a patient recruiter. Plaintiffs submitted declarations from two insiders who testified that Haya was a patient recruiter. Asserted that the checks by themselves did not prove she was a recruiter. She also argued that the insider declarations were inadmissible because they were not based on first hand knowledge.1 Judge Letts granted plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint. The declarations were admissible they specifically describe acquiring knowledge of Haya's recruiting from Haya herself. 2 In the recusal order.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3683_031.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claims that his employment with Northwestern University was terminated in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1581.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McLaughlin</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3879.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were paid by WalMart's health and welfare benefit plan. The cases were consolidated. At that time she was employed by Wal Mart Stores. The Plan is a self funded employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1621.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. The parties have filed cross appeals which raise difficult questions about the lawfulness and proper scope of the injunction in light of arguably conflicting federal statutes that. That Puerto Rico's restrictions on delivery were preempted by federal law. That an administrative fine imposed by the Secretary was invalid and unenforceable. The Secretary also makes an alternative argument that the injunction is overbroad. Factual and Procedural Background</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F569EF00290007188256BC0005876E6/$file/9935320ebcorrected.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\temp21\PlannedParenthoodLetter1.wpd
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
FACE gives aggrieved persons a right of action against whoever by
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which was filed in 2001. Was consolidated with another case against the Monsanto Company filed in April 2002. Blair and Trussell's current law firms are Blair & Parsons. We refer to these parties collectively as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Federal courts have recognized the right of prisoners to relief if prison officials deny them basic medical care. The vehicle for such suits is 42 U.S.C. 1983. The vehicle is not so clear. Some courts have treated such actions as Bivens actions. 403 U.S. 388 (1971).(2) Others have assumed that there exists a non statutory basis for injunctive action. The question arises whether the actions are barred by sovereign immunity. Very often the nature of the claim and the basis for rejecting sovereign immunity are not addressed.(4) We believe clarification would be useful. Assert that the action is barred by sovereign immunity. Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (rejecting federal prisoners' First Amendment challenge to a BOP regulation prohibiting electric instruments).
the case is properly denominated an action for relief in the nature of mandamus. That sovereign immunity is not a bar. That his claims against the Bureau of Prisons are not properly before us. I. Background and Facts Plaintiff Appellant Ron Simmat was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced by the State of Connecticut to life imprisonment in 1962.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The court holds that a jury trial is available to plaintiffs in a breach of contract lawsuit brought under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Lawsuit is brought. The district court certified the issue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) as follows: whether plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial of their breach of contract claims under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act where those claims are joined with claims under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 which are not triable to a jury in an action to restore retiree health benefits and recover damages for breach of contract.1 Initially. This appeal was consolidated with the appeal from the district court's denial of the retirees' renewed motion for a preliminary injunction. That issue is not presently 1 CONTENTIONS The retirees contend that the district court erred in striking their demand for a jury trial on their breach of contract claim under section 301 of the LMRA because that claim and the remedy sought are both legal in nature.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are once again called upon to determine whether a lawsuit claiming medical negligence is completely preempted by the civil enforcement provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
2 which included up to a twelve percent discount that Millennium would receive only if the fundamental aspects of all seven machines were identical. The contract provided that any changes to the final scope of the project were to be made in accordance with a written order to Slidell and agreed to by the parties. Millennium decided to upgrade the Including the price for change orders that are not in dispute. The total contract price for all seven machines and some additional equipment was about $11.2 million. 2 2 supervisory system specified in the contract and executed two change order development requests that authorized Slidell to start designing the system. Millennium was dissatisfied with this price and requested that Slidell remove the supervisory system from the scope of its work. Millennium confirmed that it was removing the supervisory system from the scope of the contract with Slidell. There is evidence that around May 11. Sensitive information regarding Slidell's design of the machines was provided to the RoviSys Company (RoviSys) without Slidell's consent.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Daniel J. With him on the brief were Peter D. Trudeau alleges that the press release is itself false and misleading. I Plaintiff Trudeau is a best selling author and producer of radio and television information commercials (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
California voters will be asked to cast a ballot on some of the most important issues facing the State. Forty four percent of the electorate will be forced to use a voting system so flawed that the Secretary of State has officially deemed it
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
It is from the granting of injunctive The Honorable James L. I. Curtis 1000 sells custom printed products through sales representatives who are assigned to specific geographic territories. Are not limited to a geographic area. ASB is not in the manufacturing business. Martin and Bean were both hired by Curtis 1000 in 1984 as sales representatives and were assigned different sales territories in Central Tennessee. Martin and Bean were both responsible for building their own client bases. Bean's agreement was executed on June 22. Specified that it was governed by the laws of Delaware. [T]he Sales Representative will acquire by reason of his employment valuable information concerning the Company's accounts. Any and all such information other than known generally by persons not affiliated or formerly affiliated with the Company is to be treated by the Sales Representative as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that the strict liability award was not permissible under Minnesota common law. That the MERA claim is moot because Viacom has entered an administrative consent order concerning the contaminated property. That the attorneys' fee award was excessive. That the prejudgment interest was excessive because Viacom had offered to settle the case. A portion of Westinghouse's business there was the repair of transformers that were insulated with Inerteen. Chlorobenzenes were used as a solvent to thin the PCBs down to a usable consistency. It was recognized that PCBs were potential carcinogens and that they were accumulating. PCBs and chlorobenzenes are classified as hazardous substances under MERLA and CERCLA. Sites contaminated with hazardous substances are subject to remediation under federal and state law. The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether PCBs were leaking from those sites and migrating off Westinghouse property. Whether the PCBs were likely to be detected by others and traced back to Westinghouse.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. The facts leading up to this lawsuit are set forth in great detail in the District Court's Memorandum and Order. Although Waddle had obtained ex parte probable cause state court orders to remove some of the boarding students (and also to remove some students who were no longer at HCA and others who were not even within the jurisdiction of juvenile authorities because of their ages). There were no The Honorable E. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 orders of any kind to remove many of the students who were taken from the school that day. The removal action was without notice to Heartland. Or their parents and was taken because of several allegations of mistreatment and abuse of students at HCA. The District Court entered a final preliminary injunction enjoining Waddle and others from
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The most prominent feature of which was his restoration to his job. The magistrate judge concluded that the equitable relief did not have
|
|
99-5111 -- SHARP V. WEBCO INDUSTRIES, INC. -- 07/11/2000
160(j) (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Maia Caplan and Vigilant Insurance Company (Vigilant) have brought this expedited appeal from the District Court's Order of May 25. Were parties to the settlement. Have moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds both that the May 25 Order is not an injunction appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and that the order is interlocutory and does not fall within the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which was set to expire in the fall of 1998. Inc. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This appeal is primarily governed by the standard of review. Because the artists were employed by Creative Card when the artists created the card designs. Creative Card is considered the author and the original copyright owner of the six designs.2 At the time Creative Card authored the six card designs. Creative Card was a wholly owned subsidiary of AP&P Manufacturing. An employer is the author when an item is considered a work made for hire. Brunettin created six card designs Taylor contends are similar to six card designs the artists and Granger previously created for Creative Card. Which concluded
|
|
BIO-TECHNOLOGY V. GENENTECH
|
|
99-5111A -- SHARP V. WEBCO INDUSTRIES -- 07/11/2000
Circuit Judges.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Were on brief. Allows the National Labor Relations Board (the
|
|
02-4030 -- HEIDEMAN V. SOUTH SALTLAKE CITY -- 11/04/2003
Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellees. BACKGROUND The genesis of this appeal was a lawsuit brought by the United States Secretary of Labor (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
PERSONS UNKNOWN WHO HAVE ATTEMPTED TO OBSTRUCT CONSTRUCTION WORK ON PLAINTIFF'S LAND. A crucial issue is the location of certain boundary lines. Under the unique circumstances presented here. We will affirm the district court's order as certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The amount of the fee is tethered to the classification of each property owner as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Individually and on behalf of all members of the Sperry Class previously certified by the Court whose claims have not been settled James F. We are asked to decide whether a claim for breach of fiduciary duty may be maintained under section 502(a)(3)(B) of ERISA.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That preliminary injunction is the subject of these cross appeals by Watts and Zurich. While Zurich claims it should have been broader that the district court was mistaken in holding that the RookerFeldman doctrine applied to some of the issues. The appeals were decided by a brief order on September 30. Was an insured under the policies (until it was later sold by Watts). Watts and Jones were sued for fraud in two actions in California. So Watts and Jones separately sued Zurich in California Superior Court for coverage under the policies and the two coverage actions were consolidated. Even if it were liable under the policies. Holding that the dispute under the deductible agreements was severable from the coverage dispute pending before it. Which held that the order for summary adjudication and the denial of Zurich's motion to stay were not appealable orders. Although noting the possible ambiguity regarding which issues were actually decided in the California court's order denying Zurich's motion for a stay.
|
|
HAROLDS STORES, INC. V. DILLARD DEPT. STORES, INC.
That it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law after trial. Dillard is a retail department store. Harold's is a retail clothing store with 22 stores in 7 states. Harold's represents to its customers that the original print fabric garments are available solely from Harold's. Harold's offers unique custom printed fabric designs in skirts and other sportswear that are not available from Harold's competitors. Oklahoma were offering for sale skirts with print fabric patterns identical to print skirts that Harold's had sold during the previous 1991 to 1992 sales season. The Dillard skirts were priced at $28.00 to $30.00. 223435. from Wadesboro were made from fabric similar or identical to fabric used by CMT to manufacture skirts for Harold's. That Dillard could sell the garments in markets where Harold's did not have stores. Ruling that the Copyright Act did not preempt Harold's claim under the Oklahoma Antitrust Act because the state law claim was qualitatively different from. 1994 order was fully 160 days out of time.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The school is a part of a complex that spans Lewis. The individual plaintiffs are parents whose children were involved in the incident that led to the preliminary injunction. Waddle is the Chief Juvenile Officer for the Second Judicial Circuit in Missouri. Alleging that these defendants were harassing and intimidating Heartland. The case was pending when. The removal was without notice to Heartland. Authorities had ex parte probable cause state court orders to remove only about seventy five of the students who were taken into custody. As well as orders for approximately forty children who no longer lived at Heartland and for four others who were over the age of eighteen. That is. Which evidently was inaccurate by October when he decided that all of the children living at Heartland needed to be removed immediately. The students were confined by juvenile authorities. They were given a copy of a letter from a juvenile The Heartland parents were added as plaintiffs on February 14. Lewis County were not included in Waddle's notice of appeal.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Last time it was here. Before us now is Deja Vu's appeal from the district court's decision dissolving a permanent injunction which had enjoined the enforcement of Metropolitan Code of Laws Chapter 6.54
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Section 1
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The underlying action is Acierno's request for declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages for the County's alleged violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1994).[fn1] Presently before us is the County's appeal from an order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting Acierno's motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction directing the County to issue Acierno a building permit for development of a shopping mall. The district court also concluded that Acierno would suffer irreparable harm unless the County was compelled to issue the building permit and halt its interference with Acierno's development. The County argues Acierno failed to show he will be irreparably harmed unless a preliminary injunction issues against the County. A primary purpose of a preliminary injunction is maintenance of the status quo until a decision on the merits of a case is rendered. There is no evidence in this record to show that a delay in issuance of the building permit until this case can be decided on its merits would cause irreparable harm to Acierno.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The trustees (the new trustees)1 of the Transportation Communications Interna1 tional Union Staff Retirement Plan (the Plan) and the named representatives of the class2 agreed to the elimination of cost of living 2 adjustment (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
PERSONS UNKNOWN WHO HAVE ATTEMPTED TO OBSTRUCT CONSTRUCTION WORK ON PLAINTIFF'S LAND. A crucial issue is the location of certain boundary lines. We will affirm the district court's order as certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The order was certified as final within the terms of Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The facts and disputes presented in this case are complex and multifarious. We will recite only those facts essential to deciding the issues on appeal. At stake were the title to and boundaries of parcels located in the Hansen Bay and Newfound Bay Estates in the East End Quarter of St. John.1 Included in the relief requested was the appointment of Eric Christian as Administrator of the Estate of James George Sewer. To Danish Colonial times when the rural parts of the Virgin Islands were divided into large tracts for agricultural purposes called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 and we affirm. Which have sculpted spectacular and wild canyonlands out of the Owyhee's volcanic rock formations. Ranching families are an important part of the local community with many family members participating actively in civic life as local elected officials. Water is life. Riparian areas lands adjacent to streams that support a thicker growth of vegetation are crucial to the wildlife and fish of the ORA [Owyhee Resource Area]. When riparian vegetation is overgrazed. In 1981 the BLM identified livestock overgrazing as a significant problem in the Owyhee and concluded that approximately ninety percent of the Owyhee rangeland was in poor or fair ecological condition. The BLM again examined the health of the streams in the Owyhee and found that ninety one percent of the stream miles inventoried were in unsatisfactory condition. B. The BLM's Management Of The Owyhee The BLM is statutorily charged with managing the Owyhee and is required to consider many interests.
|
|
MCCLENDON V. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE
) WILL BELL. I find that the application for the stay is well taken and should be granted. Although I have jurisdiction to consider the petition for an extraordinary writ. I will exercise my discretion to refer it to a panel of this court. Background Defendants Appellants and Petitioners are local governmental entities. Plaintiffs Appellees and Real Parties In Interest are a class of inmates who have been or will be confined at BCDC. Plaintiffs Intervenors Appellees and Real Parties In Interest are a class of inmates with mental or developmental disabilities who have been or will be confined at BCDC. Which was followed by a one day evidentiary hearing. Inmate counts were required at 4:00 a.m. each day and. The Director of the facility was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Jane Holmes Dixon is the Bishop Pro Tempore of the Diocese of Washington. Edwards is an ordained Priest of the Church who claims entitlement to the office of Rector of St. A declaration that Father Edwards is not the Rector of St. The
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
McDermott Will & Emery LLP. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e). Plaintiffs alleged that women employed in Wal Mart stores: (1) are paid less than men in comparable positions. That the policies and practices underlying this discriminatory treatment are consistent throughout WalMart stores. That this discrimination is common to all women who work or have worked in Wal Mart stores. Which is estimated to include more than 1.5 million women. Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a nationwide class of women who have been subjected to WalMart's allegedly discriminatory pay and promotions policies. Who have been or may be subjected to Wal Mart's challenged pay and management track promotions policies and practices. While the class size was large. The issues were not unusual. INC. 1341 court clearly stated that its decision would be limited to procedural questions because an adjudication of the merits was not appropriate at that early stage. The court's finding was mixed. The court denied Plaintiffs' request for certification with respect to backpay because data relating to challenged promotions were not available for all class members.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.1 Plaintiff Karen Coan was the controller of a company called KLC Inc. Such a plan is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.1 Plaintiff Karen Coan was the controller of a company called KLC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1998 the district court held a hearing on the government's motion for a preliminary injunction and entered the preliminary injunction that is the subject of this appeal.
|
|
TAYLOR JACQUELINE P V. RTC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This case is one in a long line of disputes between on one side the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Vacated that portion of the injunction that prevented the Department from charging the publishers a rental or use fee that was revenue raising. The en banc court also said that the district court should consider any claim the Department might have for fees that it had been enjoined from collecting. The 1996 plan would have governed the placement and allocation among publishers of newsracks in the airport. They were granted a preliminary injunction against its implementation. The preliminary injunction was subsequently clarified. The Department moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction and filed a new plan to be implemented once the injunction was dissolved. While the preliminary injunction was still in force. The district court denied the Department's motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction and declined to consider the 1997 plan because it found that the 1997 4 plan was not properly at issue in the litigation. (2) requiring publishers to pay a fee that was not tied to the Department's costs in administering the newsrack plan but was instead revenue raising.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
First line of footnote *
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
CV 01 00010 EJL *Ann Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). **Dale Bosworth is substituted for his predecessor. We have received amicus briefs from: Washington Legal Foundation and United States Senators Larry E. VENEMAN that the Roadless Rule was promulgated without proper process and that it is invalid. An appeal was taken in both cases by intervenors. We consolidated the appeals and have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). That plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Roadless Rule. The co plaintiffs joined with the Kootenai Tribe are: the BlueRibbon Coalition. There are now 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in the National Forest System. 2.8 million acres of roadless areas have been developed by the Forest Service. Against the Forest Service on This is perhaps reminiscent of George Orwell's
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND Some of the background of this litigation is set forth in Peter v. Relevant to this fee dispute is the following. To whom this matter was referred for submission by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Because another matter is pending in the district court. The State indicated it would work with the state board of education to repeal the rule to the extent it was inconsistent with Agostini. The State will no longer enforce the rule as limited to neutral sites
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
At issue are two sets of apartment complexes. These buildings are at various stages of construction. All have the same basic design. The ground floor apartments at issue have two exterior entrances a front door and rear patio door.2 The front door is closer to the parking lot. Is handicapped inaccessible because it can only be reached by descending stairs. At the bottom of the stairs is a landing shared by two front doors leading into two different apartments. The rear patio entrance is accessible. 3 but is located farther from the parking lot. Adopting the government's position that the front door was the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ltd. was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. Ducharme was arrested by the State Police and charged with disorderly conduct. The charge was based on Ducharme's
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The main question in this case is whether a North Carolina tax on illegal drugs is in reality a criminal penalty.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Officer Miles' Employment History Robert Miles is an African American. He was promoted to Sergeant and was assigned to the Operations Center. Officer Miles filed a lawsuit that later was settled without admission of liability. Officer Miles 1 subsequently was promoted to First Sergeant. Officer Miles served as Quartermaster in the Logistics Division from 1985 until 1 The structure of the Indiana State Police is a para military ranking system where officers begin with a rank of Trooper. Officer Miles was transferred to the Department of Administration to serve as the Director of Parking and Security and Chief of the Capitol Police. 2. Promotion test scores are valid for one year. Are committed to the dis2 cretion of the Superintendent. Racial Comment and Complaint While Officer Miles was employed in the Personnel Division. He was a Section Commander. 300 sworn officers which was comprised of 43 First Sergeants. No further action was taken because Major Carraway did not complain about the remark. Officer Miles alleged that his
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND HMOP is a health maintenance organization (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Though our appellate jurisdiction is normally limited to reviewing final orders. I. Background The preliminary injunction was issued after an expedited briefing and hearing schedule. The full text of that policy is reproduced in Appendix A to this opinion. To continue to allow the Gideons to distribute Bibles as we have done in the past.
|
|
SCOTT BENJAMIN W. V. DC
|
|
97-4015 -- STATE OF UTAH V. BABBITT -- 03/03/1998
Summary of Utah Wilderness Debate A brief review of the history of the wilderness debate in Utah is necessary to put the facts of this case into context. These public lands comprise approximately one fifth of the nation's land and are primarily located in eleven western states and Alaska. See id. FLPMA
|
|
LERMER V. LERMER CORP.
|
|
02-3329 -- TANDY V. CITY OF WICHITA -- 08/25/2004
Almost all of the Appellants were testing Wichita Transit's compliance with the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA and did not reside in the Wichita area. Appellants alleged that Wichita Transit's fixed route bus system was intentionally inaccessible to and unusable by people with disabilities.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1 to whom we will refer collectively as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We further conclude that NASD rules approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission have preemptive force over conflicting state law. Section 6 of the California Constitution requires the [California Judicial Council] to improve the administration of justice by . . . [a]dopting rules for court administration and rules of practice and procedure that are not inconsistent with statute . . . .
|
|
03-2016 -- VALLEY COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMISSION V. MINETA -- 06/23/2004
By failing to conduct the necessary reviews and investigations to determine whether the project will entail a
|
|
SHINYEI CORPORATION OF AMERICA V. US
Argued for defendent appellee. With him on the brief was Peter D. New York. Of counsel on the brief was. The court s ruling that after liquidation it could no longer grant relief was in error. Accordingly. Were the subjects of several Commerce antidumping investigations.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
L.P. (collectively
|
|
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE V. S. FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DIST. (2/1/2002, NO. 00-15703)
The suit alleges that the Water District was violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants from the S 9 pump station into Water Management District 3A without a national pollution discharge elimination system (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sitting by designation.
jurisdiction over CWA citizen enforcement actions when a state has commenced and is diligently prosecuting the same violations under a state law
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is a named defendant in four lawsuits. The plaintiffs are California municipalities who allege that Ellett's marketing of handguns creates public and private nuisances and violates the California Business and Professions Code. Ellett argues that the term
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
As the issues raised in this appeal are matters of first impression among the courts of appeals.
|
|
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE V. S. FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DIST. (2/1/2002, NO. 00-15703)
The suit alleges that the Water District was violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants from the S 9 pump station into Water Management District 3A without a national pollution discharge elimination system (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The suit alleges that the Water District was violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants from the S 9 pump station into Water Management District 3A without a national pollution discharge elimination system (
|
|
SMITH V. GTE CORP. (1/4/2001, NO. 99-12833)
GTE argued APSC has primary jurisdiction over the claims and that the district court should abstain until the plaintiffs' claims were presented to and reviewed by the APSC. The plaintiffs appealed.
|
|
SMITH V. GTE CORP. (1/4/2001, NO. 99-12833)
GTE argued APSC has primary jurisdiction over the claims and that the district court should abstain until the plaintiffs' claims were presented to and reviewed by the APSC. The plaintiffs appealed.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Of which Kerr is the president and sole shareholder. Worked on Vatterott & Co. projects as well as Legacy Homes projects and thus were eligible to participate in Vatterott & Co.'s 401(k) pension plan. Vatterott & Co. is the plan administrator and Commerce Bank is the trustee of the Vatterott & Co. 401(k) plan. The plan entitles a plan participant who is terminated prior to retirement to receive the net credit balance in his individual plan account. Kerr was fully vested in the 401(k) plan at the time of his termination from Legacy Homes. 1991 (the valuation date based on Kerr's October request) was $16. The 4 district court also declined Kerr's request for attorney's fees and costs because Kerr was unsuccessful on his ERISA claims. Arguing that lost interest is an appropriate equitable remedy under section 1132(a)(3) and proof of receipt is not an element of his claim under section 1132(c). Kerr does not dispute that he has received the funds in his account to which he is entitled under the plan. Argues instead that his recovery was inadequate because he had to wait three and a half years for his money and had to file suit before Vatterott & Co. finally paid the account over.
|
|
NATC V. US
|
|
;AMAZON.COM, INC. V. BARNESANDNOBLE.COM, INC
With her on the brief were J. Of counsel was John R. Of counsel on the brief were David J. With him on the brief were William G. Of counsel on the brief were Michael N. Of counsel was Stanton T. This is a patent infringement suit brought by Amazon.com. We have jurisdiction to review the district court's order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1) (1994).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Regional Director contends that the district court abused its discretion in finding that (1) the Union did not have the support of a majority of the employees of Stephen Dunn & Associates (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Regional Director contends that the district court abused its discretion in finding that (1) the Union did not have the support of a majority of the employees of Stephen Dunn & Associates (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Regional Director contends that the district court abused its discretion in finding that (1) the Union did not have the support of a majority of the employees of Stephen Dunn & Associates (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Regional Director contends that the district court abused its discretion in finding that (1) the Union did not have the support of a majority of the employees of Stephen Dunn & Associates (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
QualChoice filed a complaint against Rowland alleging that QualChoice was a plan administrator and fiduciary for an employee benefit plan governed by ERISA. That Rowland was a participant in that plan. That under the terms of the plan Rowland was obligated to reimburse QualChoice from the money she received in that settlement. The amended complaint claimed that federal jurisdiction was proper under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. What the settlement amount was. When and to whom settlement amounts were or will be paid). · Where the monies making up the
|
|
01-5166 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. SKYBIZ.COM INC. -- 01/30/2003
The
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND The facts in this case are not in dispute. married since 1988. The O'Hagans have been The IRS appeals. Which is their principal place of residence. The O'Hagans have owned the homestead property at all times In during their marriage as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. 1988. O'Hagan has not been assessed any income tax liability and is not obligated to pay any part of her husband's taxes. Which sale was to occur on November Mrs. DISCUSSION The question before us is whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin the government from selling Mr. The primary purpose of the Act is to See The § facilitate the expeditious collection of taxes by the government. The Supreme Court held that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases brought by an allegedly delinquent taxpayer in which the collection or assessment of taxes would be enjoined because: (1) the government cannot prevail on the merits even if the facts and law are examined in the light most favorable to the government.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
(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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On page 9. Replace
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that we should reverse the district court's judgment because the remedy is not
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Spellman were on brief. Glass was on brief. A magistrate judge found that a major dispute existed as that term is used in the jurisprudence of the RLA and further found that the defendants had engaged in prohibited conduct. One manifestation of this bias is that. While this pavane is in progress.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: In this opinion we are required to examine concepts that have evolved in our jurisprudence since the 1798 ratification of the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Contributing to those concepts were. Examining the broad canvas of this jurisprudence is like looking at an abstract painting whose meaning and significance is not seen by every viewer in the same light. Are obliged to and do adopt the meaning set out in Supreme Court opinions. It is subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These reimbursements are derived. Appellants Nickel and McCloud have substantial responsibilities within the Office. Nickel is the Office's executive director and has responsibility for the overall management of the Fund's operations. McCloud is the Secretary of the Public Protection and Regulation Cabinet for the Commonwealth of Kentucky and oversees agencies within the Cabinet. Which then determines whether the application will be approved on the basis of numerous regulatory qualifications. among others.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
(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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
PER CURIAM: This is the appeal of Arthur Dennis Rutherford. (A copy of the district court's order is attached as an appendix to this opinion.). I. The first ground on which the district court dismissed Rutherford's § 1983 complaint is that under our prior precedent a claim attacking the general procedures or protocols a state uses to carry out executions by lethal injection must be brought in a habeas corpus proceeding. That decision of the district court is correct as a matter of circuit law. Is not a decision and does not affect our obligation. 358 F.3d at 1284 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We will refer to the cases as having been brought by D'Elegance and Malaco. 1 S & D LAND CLEARING v. Although these current appeals have not been formally consolidated. They are factually interrelated to such a degree that we conclude it is appropriate to resolve them in a single opinion. Commenced supplemental proceedings to enforce the judgment against D'Elegance and ordered Appellants not to transfer any property of D'Elegance that was not exempt from execution. The challenges to the March 16 and July 3 orders are unreviewable as interlocutory. The district court did not err in allowing supplemental proceedings and the order not to transfer D'Elegance's property was appropriate under such proceedings. The small amount of C & D debris Malaco was allowed to remove was the least profitable.3 Malaco encountered other difficulties. Including D'Elegance's efforts to hire away Malaco's truck drivers with promises of higher pay and warnings that Malaco did not have a contract and was not going to get paid.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Center for Biological Diversity was named the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity. It was subsequently re named the Center for Biological Diversity. 1 8 SOUTHWEST CENTER v. Are non profit corporations actively involved in species protection issues throughout the southwestern United States. Defendant/appellee United States Forest Service is a federal agency within the United States Department of Agriculture which has responsibility for administering and protecting public lands. In this matter it is the action agency. The Secretary has delegated primary responsibility to defendant/appellee United States Fish and Wildlife Service to assist the Forest Service in determining whether any proposed action by the Forest Service is likely to impact the loach minnow. 50 C.F.R. § 402.13. Intervenor appellee New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association and intervenor/cross appellant Arizona Cattle Growers' Association are non profit. The district court was required to issue an injunction halting grazing until the consultation process was completed.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs are leaders of IGP. Much of which is critical of the United States' financial and taxing policies.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Lund LLP were on brief. Flexner were on brief.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Certain other prison proceedings while he was incarcerated at the Potosi Correctional Center (PCC) from 1989 to 1996. The stateThis interlocutory appeal is concerned with questions of law. Arguing that Randolph's claims are prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment.3 The District Court granted the State's motion in part. The State brings this interlocutory appeal arguing that the District Court erred in applying Ex parte Young and that the District Court should have dismissed Randolph's remaining ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the prison officials in their official capacities on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. We note that we have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine. 753 54 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting that an order denying a claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity is properly appealable as a collateral order). Even if the state is otherwise protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. We hold that the Ex parte Young ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims are moot with respect to four of the five prison officials.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 7 the references to
|
|
DAVID VINCENT, INC. V. BROWARD COUNTY (1/18/2000, NO. 98-4211)
Senior Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appellants are adult bookstores in unincorporated Broward County. The district court ruled that Broward County's zoning ordinance for adult businesses was constitutional both facially and as applied to plaintiffs. The adult bookstores raise three issues on appeal. They question the district court's ruling that Broward County's zoning ordinance is facially constitutional. Support the district court's ruling that the zoning ordinance is facially constitutional. We cannot say that the district court's findings as to the number of sites available for adult businesses under the zoning ordinance are clearly erroneous. We affirm the district court ruling that Broward County's zoning ordinance is constitutional both facially and as applied.
|
|
DAVID VINCENT, INC. V. BROWARD COUNTY (1/18/2000, NO. 98-4211)
Senior Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appellants are adult bookstores in unincorporated Broward County. The district court ruled that Broward County's zoning ordinance for adult businesses was constitutional both facially and as applied to plaintiffs. The adult bookstores raise three issues on appeal. They question the district court's ruling that Broward County's zoning ordinance is facially constitutional. Support the district court's ruling that the zoning ordinance is facially constitutional. We cannot say that the district court's findings as to the number of sites available for adult businesses under the zoning ordinance are clearly erroneous. We affirm the district court ruling that Broward County's zoning ordinance is constitutional both facially and as applied.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 2 the crossreference is corrected to read
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Xerox was dismissed as a defendant in the first of the district court's rulings. The central issue in this appeal is whether the manner in which the defendants instituted a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Xerox was dismissed as a defendant in the first of the district court's rulings. The central issue in this appeal is whether the manner in which the defendants instituted a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The District Court held that Cubatabaco's COHIBA mark was sufficiently famous in the United States by the time General Cigar. Began selling COHIBA cigars in the United States that the mark was entitled to protection. We hold that even were the famous marks doctrine to be recognized an issue we do not decide here Cubatabaco is barred by the United States' embargo in force against Cuba from acquiring property rights in United States trademarks via the famous marks doctrine. The Cuban COHIBA mark was sufficiently well known in the United States that it deserved protection under the so called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Rizzo have appealed the entry of the preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Only they have appealed. 3 1 Byrne. The preliminary results of the audit detailed several unnecessary or overpaid positions at the Funds and an unnecessary satellite office.2 These preliminary results were not shared with any of appellants until November 12. The following specific problems had been identified: · Edward Dwyer was paid $119. · Isaac Boracus was paid $123. Inc. was paid $158. Dennis Jastrzebski was paid $123. · Jamie Dolan and Rhoda Vergalito were paid a combined salary of $126. An emergency trusteeship hearing was held. Which found that there were a number of the unnecessary or overpaid positions or positions of power within the Unions and that many of them were held by persons related to or associated with a Mr. The IHO concluded that the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND Colonial is a corporation
|
|
STEWART V. KHD DEUTZ OF AM. CORP.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Stewart v. The court holds that a jury trial is available to plaintiffs in a breach of contract lawsuit brought under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Lawsuit is brought.<p> FACTS<p> <p> In May 1985. The district court certified the issue pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb96/94-8547.opa.html">STEWART V. KHD DEUTZ OF AM. CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Stewart v. The court holds that a jury trial is available to plaintiffs in a breach of contract lawsuit brought under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Lawsuit is brought.<p> FACTS<p> <p> In May 1985. The district court certified the issue pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3081.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Willard argues that the relief sought is not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011068.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are virtually the only significant competitors in the manufacture and sale of high performance electronic interface connector systems. MAC Panel alleged that the injunction was necessary to enable Craycroft to devote the time and attention necessary to prepare a plan of reorganization for the company. That complaint was later amended to extend the injunction request to include the claims against John Cray MAC PANEL CO. v. As well as those who were willing to reduce their claims to $2. Because implementation of the plan required that MAC Panel have $1. Of which MAC Panel projected to have only $430. The proposed plan for reorganization was denied. The principal problems were that the plan failed to pay VPC a sufficient rate of interest on the deferred part of its unsecured claim and that the provision releasing the Craycrofts was unacceptable. The only significant change in the amended plan relevant to VPC was the payment of 9% interest. A rate that was acceptable to VPC. MAC Panel is the only competitor of VPC.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/971123P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They were rejected because MSI had reached the twenty probation violator cap. Order merely clarified its earlier injunction orders and therefore is not appealable. Because Sheriff Murphy's appeal is a belated appeal from the September 16 order. These contentions are without merit. The appealability of the September 16 order is not at issue. The Sheriff's notice of appeal explicitly states that he is appealing the order denying his motion to dissolve that injunction. The order denying a motion to dissolve an injunction is appealable. The September 16 order had no impact on Sheriff Murphy until he was barred from confining alleged probation violators in empty jail cells. That motion was timely under Fed. Its denial is appealable. Sheriff Murphy argues that the district court erred in summarily denying his motion to dissolve the injunction under prior law because the technical probation violator cap was imposed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/870530A1FDABD79688256EE800580191/$file/0315698.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. When those johns are arrested. We hope that the only visit people make to our jail is a virtual visit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992502.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which are virtually undisputed. Are largely taken from the district court's opinion. Residential customers in the District are charged a base rate for water and sewer services. Are charged the property taxes even though the District does not provide them with water or sewer service. Stated that it was aware
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-12251.man.html">DILLARD V. BALDWIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (9/8/2000, NO. 99-12251)<BR></A><BR>
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. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/973679P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was outcome determinative on the summary judgment motion. Because many members of the class he seeks to represent would have been able to pursue the claims asserted. Hall brought this lawsuit on behalf of all individuals who are covered under contracts and plans subject to ERISA to which LHACO provided administrative services to challenge LHACO's alleged practice of asserting subrogation liens against covered individuals far in excess of what their plans permit. Count II asserted breach of fiduciary duty LHACO was pursuant to § 502(a)(3) of ERISA. Although the nub of Hall's lawsuit is his contention that LHACO. Improperly attempted to expand the ERISA plan's rights to subrogation beyond what was conferred by the terms of the plan by conditioning payment of benefits on a participant's signing of a form acknowledging subrogation rights in excess of those provided by the plan. The merits of that issue are not currently before us. We will address Hall's argument that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of LHACO on essentially the ground that Hall had sued the wrong party and.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-12251.man.html">DILLARD V. BALDWIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (9/8/2000, NO. 99-12251)<BR></A><BR>
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. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414126.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In connection with their use of non union labor for an ongoing construction project at Brandon Regional Medical Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/06E1CD159644A5D988256E5A00707C14/$file/9956169.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and we affirm. Was affiliated with two companies. These companies were approached by the principals of a company called EDP to help create a market for EDP stock. The stock was not registered with the SEC. The SEC alleges that EDP was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-4379.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Gen. The relevant portions of the district court's opinion are attached as an appendix.<p> AFFIRMED.<p> APPENDIX<p> <p> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT <p> <p> SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA <p> <p> IN RE: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. 1993</i><p> <p> BEFORE THIS COURT is an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's Order Granting Atlantic Gulf's Motion to Enforce Executory Contract. Currently pending before the Court are three motions: (1) Appellee General Development Corporation's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200412/03-5314a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were G. The bulk of the funds in the accounts are the proceeds of various transactions in land allotted to individual Indians under the General Allotment Act of 1887. The IIM funds have quite a different legal status from the allotment land itself. It gave the Indian beneficiaries the right to possess and manage the lands except insofar as alienation was involved. The IIM funds are by statute under the full control of the United States. Duties related to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-4379.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Gen. The relevant portions of the district court's opinion are attached as an appendix.<p> AFFIRMED.<p> APPENDIX<p> <p> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT <p> <p> SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA <p> <p> IN RE: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. 1993</i><p> <p> BEFORE THIS COURT is an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's Order Granting Atlantic Gulf's Motion to Enforce Executory Contract. Currently pending before the Court are three motions: (1) Appellee General Development Corporation's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/95-3251.wpd.html">PHELPS V. HAMILTON<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This is one of a series of cases initiated by the plaintiffs appellants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 from eleven state criminal prosecutions arising from their anti homosexual picketing and from state statutes which allegedly threaten their picketing activities. The district court held that: (1) a state court determination that the criminal prosecutions were not brought in bad faith violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights was entitled to full faith and credit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1738. (2) the Kansas Funeral Picketing Act was unconstitutionally vague. (3) the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the Kansas anti stalking law and Kansas telephone and fax harassment law. Phelps are members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka. Who are involved in anti homosexual protests and picketing in Shawnee County. The plaintiffs and other members of the Westboro Baptist Church have engaged in a campaign against homosexuality through demonstrating.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF4A85A0B9A1D9ED88256A9C005A0E5A/$file/9956169.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and we affirm. Was affiliated with two companies. These companies were approached by the principals of a company called EDP to help create a market for EDP stock. The stock was not registered with the SEC. The SEC alleges that EDP was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512327.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge: This appeal raises the question: under what circumstances will a creditor be barred from later bringing an action against a co creditor based upon state law claims if. That Kodak was precluded from bringing the New York action by the doctrine of res judicata as a result of orders issued by the bankruptcy court in a bankruptcy filed by Atlanta Retail. We hold that res judicata does not bar the New York action because Kodak could not have received a full remedy in the contested Wolf bankruptcy proceedings and because the same nucleus of operative fact was not presented in the two actions. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the injunction is vacated. Entered into an agreement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2291.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sons</U> were on brief. William Loeffler</U> and <U>Troutman Sanders LLP</U> were on brief. That is. Debtors have sought relief from both the federal bankruptcy courts and district courts attempting to put an end to this practice. The latest strategy for reform is to seek certification of a class of debtors against repeat offenders of the Bankruptcy Code that is. Specifically at issue in this case is the alleged misconduct of the appellee. Operating under a misunderstanding that it was powerless to provide a remedy to the appellant under the Bankruptcy Code. Because we have determined that a remedy was available through the court's equitable powers under § 105 of the Code. The reaffirmation agreement was not filed with the bankruptcy court and did not satisfy other general requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 524. The appellant's primary theory was that § 524 provides a private right of action. She contended that the district court is authorized to grant relief via 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5003.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding it was not an available remedy under the FDCA as a matter of law. Which was then filled by a Canadian pharmacy and sent directly to the customer in the United States. The district court determined disgorgement was not available under the FDCA as a matter of law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200005/99-5065a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Gilbert S. United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. He was terminated for his alleged failure to comply with federal and state tax laws. All were dismissed by the District Court. One of the complaints was a tax refund action. Actions based on s 6213(a) to enjoin the Service's assessment of a tax deficiency before the Service mails a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer are exempt from the Anti Injunction Act of Internal Revenue Code. Contending that a continuance was necessary because he had the flu and he had suffered burns during a fire in his home. He was so disoriented that. He was under the impression that it was January 26. That he was without heat for one day in January because his house lost electricity during an ice storm. While this is a deferential standard. We have made it clear that. A District Court may dismiss under Rule 41(b)
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1182.html">POLYMER TECH. V. BRIDWELL<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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FF97BA225A82346988256E5A00707BDD/$file/9935930.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 such is not the case in the judicial arena
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B8A1C95D4198B1488256E4A00815902/$file/9950041.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That naturalization ceremony was the culmination of a 16 year struggle between Appellees and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FB285A20884E5ABA88256A84007C899A/$file/9935930.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 such is not the case in the judicial arena
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2039.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whitman & Ranson were on brief for appellees. were on brief for appellees. Due to the fact that the State of New Hampshire had banned Seabrook construction cost recoveries through PSNH rate increases until after the facility was brought on line. PSNH was forced to seek chapter 11 protection prior to the completion of the second unit. The NHPUC order was affirmed by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire on **NUSC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Northeast Utility. A public **NUSC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Northeast Utility. Appellants objected to confirmation of the reorganization plan on the grounds that the approved rate agreement on which the reorganiza tion was based would deprive PSNH of its prudent investment in Seabro ok and that the proposed reorganization therefore was not in the best interests of appellants. Who were cross examined by appellants. Since the rate agreement was within the range of results reasonably expectable in a litigated rate case. Which was denied by the bankruptcy judge after hearing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/032201p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge For over five years plaintiffa p p ellant Saudi Basic Indu stries Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D8E586240111EE68825718D0074F92F/$file/0415787.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/951105P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Nebraska State Penitentiary (NSP) is forced to house many of its prisoners two men to a cell. While this practice is not a per se constitutional violation. The plaintiffs crossappeal the portion of the order applicable to long term inmates and the District Court's holding that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I. The plaintiffs in this case are the class of inmates housed or to be housed in the four main housing units of the Nebraska State Penitentiary.3 They brought this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A fifth main housing unit was erected while this case was pending. 33 2 1 First. They contend that the policy of holding both inmates responsible 4 for contraband found in a double cell violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. was held. The manner in which the defendants were conducting that practice did. Is a maximum It are that Units one through four. The main in this case. prison The cells We will recount those findings here only to the extent necessary for our review. security prison.
</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/0854C811179B91CC88256F4A000156D0/$file/0335381.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The International Fuel Tax Agreement is a
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2749_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a taxpayer suit. Notre Dame was permitted to intervene in the case in the district court as a defendant. ACE is a program for training teachers in Catholic schools. The third is encouragement of the teachers to live and work in accordance with the tenets of the Catholic faith. It was too late to enjoin the expenditure and the likelihood of a future such earmark was too remote to warrant injunctive relief. No. 05 2749 3 We agree that the claim for injunctive relief is moot. Not that the entire case is moot. 000 in federal money was expended by the Secretary of Education (actually slightly less. That expenditure was. Ordinarily federal taxpayers do not have standing to complain about federal expenditures. The Supreme Court has carved an exception for cases in which a taxpayer complains that Congress is spending money in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause. That expenditure is deemed sufficient injury to the taxpayer to allow him to maintain suit in federal court. Is the depletion of the federal treasury by the amount of the grant.
</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/04/02/032825P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which they allege was to be taken for a private use. I. The property which is the subject of the condemnation proceeding is located at the intersection of Hampton and Chippewa Avenues in St. Is a resident of Florida and trustee of the Sylvia H. The trust is a tenant in common with ADTAR. Each owns an undivided fifty percent interest in both the building in which the Target store is located and the ground on which the building is situated. Hampton Village Associates is a New York limited liability company and the successor in interest to the Estate of Louis Feil. Their appeal was docketed as No. 03 2825. Target's appeal from the injunction was filed the same day and was docketed as No. 03 2827. We have jurisdiction over the appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 2 2 1 Appellees own the building which houses a Target store and the property on which it and the adjoining parking lots are located. The lease covers a store building which was previously leased to Arlans Department Stores. In May 2002 appellees responded that they were not opposed to demolition of the existing store.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E28ADDED7F9C051388256FBE0077758F/$file/0135028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Held that the district court should have dismissed the treaty based claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thereby breaching its fiduciary responsibilities to the Tribe under the Treaty. [1] These claims are not properly brought under the FTCA. Would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (emphasis added).2 The Tribe's claims against the United States are properly characterized not as tort claims. The claims are thus quite different from those in cases like Berkovitz v. Which was rejected on November 20. The Coast Guard acted negligently in its operation of a lighthouse because it did not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/02-6101.htm">02-6101 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. KUYKENDALL -- 12/11/2002<BR></A><BR>
(d) the award of $39 million for consumer redress is contrary to undisputed record evidence. <strong><u></strong></u> <p> In addition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952304P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. C.H.L.R. is a corporation that operates Stanford's Comedy House in Little Rock. Glazer Cass County Music are officers. Jones was dayto day manager of the Comedy House in Little Rock. Are members of the American Society of Composers. Authors and Publishers (ASCAP). rights of its members.1 ASCAP is a performing rights society. ASCAP contacted Jones to advise him of the need for an ASCAP license if ASCAP sound recordings were to be played at the club. That is. A list of ASCAP music was obtained. Music tapes were made that included no ASCAP recordings. The staff was instructed to play only the recorded non ASCAP tapes when the club was open for business. Is not a party to this suit. As will be seen. ASCAP was a key player in the events leading up to the lawsuit. 2 1 action on a copyright infringement claim. The music companies that are appellees here. that any copyright infringements were the result C.H.L.R. contends of its employees' inadvertence and were unknown to management. Another performing rights society) or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/591DAF74D57F7E4C88256E5A00707CC3/$file/0055122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: It has been said that bad credit is like a
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D407A8FAA1E2A6C88256ABF004CE62A/$file/9936115.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Remanding these state suits to the courts from which they were removed. 000) is present in the consolidated action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district court's order 12498 dismissing the consolidated complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We must determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the district court's order remanding the original actions to the state court from which they came. Six state actions were filed in Washington. [the Panel] is authorized to transfer civil actions pending in more than one district involving one or more common questions of fact to any district court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings upon its determination that transfer `will be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F6FB9B2BEE8A48EE88256E5A00707CA6/$file/9936115.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Remanding these state suits to the courts from which they were removed. 000) is present in the consolidated action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district court's order 12498 dismissing the consolidated complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We must determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the district court's order remanding the original actions to the state court from which they came. Six state actions were filed in Washington. [the Panel] is authorized to transfer civil actions pending in more than one district involving one or more common questions of fact to any district court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings upon its determination that transfer `will be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.'
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D06EED7E97A7520388256AC5005C2482/$file/0055122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: It has been said that bad credit is like a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EA12EAE1E7DD7C488256D1600736A46/$file/9936086.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn and the attached opinion is ORDERED filed. The full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The action was brought in 1998 by a class of approximately 15. P. 23(a) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5069a.html">MICHAEL H. HOLLAND V. NATIONAL MINING ASSN<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for federal appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0EA70B347B8D1DE888257203005677C7/$file/0417295.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is part of the FEHA and provides. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36F241E6EF9CAD5988257015004E3218/$file/0135028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows. Is deleted. Judge Berzon's opinion dissenting in part is amended as follows. Footnote 1 of the dissenting opinion is revised to read as follows:
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1A3764591F9EF01F88256A6F0059BBAA/$file/9970274.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concurrence by Judge Beezer *John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33DAA86C85AF72D08825723E005EE5E6/$file/0455396.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: First Alliance Mortgage Company was driven into bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation by well publicized and justified allegations of fraudulent lending practices. One is a class action on behalf of First Alliance's borrowers seeking to impose liability for aiding and abetting the fraudulent scheme engaged in by First Alliance. (This group of unsecured creditors is essentially the same as the group of borrowers asserting their claims of fraud against First Alliance. As is explained in more detail below. These two separate actions were handled together by the same district court and have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. First Alliance Mortgage Company First Alliance was a lender in the
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F46CE5BC93D7551988256E5A00707B9F/$file/9970274.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concurrence by Judge Beezer *John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/97-5361.opn.html">FLORIDA V. SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA(7/20/1999, NO. 97-5361)<BR></A><BR>
<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/011377a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an issue of first impression in this court. The bases for its action are that the UPMC ad contained false statements and deceptive advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. UPMC later asserted that plaintiff 's Lanham Act claims also were proscribed by the McCarran Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA). The CommunityBlue Direct plan is also marketed solely to employers and subscribers in Western Pennsylvania. Both UPMC plans and Highmark's CommunityBlue Direct plan are network based plans.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/011377.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an issue of first impression in this court. The bases for its action are that the UPMC ad contained false statements and deceptive advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. UPMC later asserted that plaintiff 's Lanham Act claims also were proscribed by the McCarran Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA). The CommunityBlue Direct plan is also marketed solely to employers and subscribers in Western Pennsylvania. Both UPMC plans and Highmark's CommunityBlue Direct plan are network based plans.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/97-5361.opn.html">FLORIDA V. SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA(7/20/1999, NO. 97-5361)<BR></A><BR>
<A HREF=
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/94-5083.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CITY OF HIALEAH (5/7/1998, NO. 94-5083)<BR></A><BR>
42 U.S.C. § 2000e <EM>et seq.</EM> Other parts of the consent decree have been approved and entered. They are not in question. One such part requires the City to hire as police officers and firefighters thirty blacks from a pool of prior applicants who were qualified but had been denied employment. The part of the decree the district court refused to enter would have granted retroactive competitive seniority to those thirty new black employees.</P> <P> The district court. We agree with the district court that the retroactive seniority part of the proposed consent decree would have diminished the seniority rights of incumbent employees. Which are legally enforceable rights guaranteed to them by their collective bargaining agreements. Or a finding that the provision was necessary and appropriate to remedy discrimination proven during a trial at which all affected parties had an opportunity to participate. We also conclude that the cross appeal is moot.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. The Hialeah workforce was approximately 17% black.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/94-5083.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CITY OF HIALEAH (5/7/1998, NO. 94-5083)<BR></A><BR>
42 U.S.C. § 2000e <EM>et seq.</EM> Other parts of the consent decree have been approved and entered. They are not in question. One such part requires the City to hire as police officers and firefighters thirty blacks from a pool of prior applicants who were qualified but had been denied employment. The part of the decree the district court refused to enter would have granted retroactive competitive seniority to those thirty new black employees.</P> <P> The district court. We agree with the district court that the retroactive seniority part of the proposed consent decree would have diminished the seniority rights of incumbent employees. Which are legally enforceable rights guaranteed to them by their collective bargaining agreements. Or a finding that the provision was necessary and appropriate to remedy discrimination proven during a trial at which all affected parties had an opportunity to participate. We also conclude that the cross appeal is moot.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. The Hialeah workforce was approximately 17% black.
</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/5FAF42E4EC2BE49988256F8900613980/$file/0515042.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A California death row inmate whose execution is scheduled for Wednesday. Beardslee also makes an emergency motion for a stay of execution.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). I Beardslee was convicted by a jury in San Mateo County. We construe this motion as one for
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0488p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He claims that the materials comprising the Tax Toolbox were never introduced into evidence at the hearing on the injunction. Because the injunction's scope is appropriately tailored and does not unduly burden his livelihood.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1878.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellant. Cowley and Edwards & Angell were on brief for appellees. This acquisition was completed through the merger of the prior owner. ECN 2 is consolidating the three newspapers into one publication to be called The Salem Evening News. This consolidated daily is to be published from ECN's Beverly facility. Which is less than five miles from the less modern Salem plant. The district court noted that this consolidation was the principal reason for ECN's acquisition and that it required a reduction in the work force in order to avoid duplication. The Agreement was to expire on September 30. It was extended until March 31. The Guild contends that the Agreement was extended because of the then pending acquisition and due. The Publisher communicated to the Guild
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/033651P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) Wyeth is barred by the three year statute of limitations period under Minnesota Statute section 325C.06 from raising its trade secret misappropriation claim. Which is prescribed for the treatment of symptoms associated with menopause. Natural Biologics claims to have independently developed its extraction process through review of Wyeth's expired patents. Saveraid also collaborated with 2 The key ingredient for Premarin is made by extracting conjugated estrogens from pregnant mare urine (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug06/03-30627-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case demonstrates the progress we have made. Yet the distance we have to go to eliminate the vestiges of past racial discrimination. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This lawsuit was first filed in 1965. Bowling Green School was organized as a private racially segregated school. After a hearing the trial court found
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/983265P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was collateral for the defaulted loan. Alleging that he was charged for official fees never paid to public officials. We have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from orders granting permanent injunctions. We conclude there is no federal question jurisdiction over the interest overcharge class's claims. CAC supplies dealers with retail installment contract forms containing numerous blanks to be filled in by the dealer and the purchaser before the contract is signed. One blank is entitled charges
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1600.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Jennifer A. Also on the brief were Gregory N. On the brief were Timothy S. Also on the brief was Allan M. Is the assignee of three patents. At issue in this case is the fixed price purchasing feature of eBay's website. Which allows customers to purchase items that are listed on eBay's website for a fixed. At the time this action was brought. ReturnBuy owned and operated an Internet website that was hosted by the eBay website. Where items available for sale by ReturnBuy were displayed in an eBay listing. The district court ruled that claims 1 35 and 51 52 of the '051 patent were invalid for lack of enablement. That neither the '265 patent nor the '176 patent was invalid. EBay and Half.com moved for judgment as a matter of law (
</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/8138B5E4723C6FE988257150005B327E/$file/0455324.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unable to obtain shelter on the night each was cited or arrested. I. Facts and Procedural Background The facts underlying this appeal are largely undisputed. Robert Lee Purrie (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B181A3BD78A945088256E5A00707D47/$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-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1868.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ramirez & Ramirez were on brief. Dominguez & Totti were on brief. The Executive Order is reproduced in an appendix to the district court's rescript. Each agency was directed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-5.gif" ALT="541"></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-5.gif" ALT="541"></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-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/042070P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Charles Calhoon and the members of his family appeal from the district court's1 order that concluded that the relief the Calhoons seek is not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-2370.htm">97-2370 -- GUARDIANS V. BABBITT -- 04/22/1999<BR></A><BR>
The petition for rehearing is denied by the panel that rendered the decision. The Court will. As follows: <p> The first sentence of the first full paragraph in column two at 164 F.3d 1269 of the West's Federal Reporter advance sheets (first sentence of first full paragraph on page 20 of our slip opinion) is amended to read: Even in mandamus cases. We have often spoken in strong. Language with regard to the court's duty to enforce agency action mandated by Congress. <p> The first sentence of the first full paragraph in column two at 164 F.3d at 1274 of the West's Federal Reporter advance sheets (first sentence of first full paragraph on page 34 of the slip opinion) is amended to read: While we hold that the Secretary must be ordered to comply with his statutory duty to publish a final regulation regarding designation of the critical habitat for the silvery minnow without regard to his preferred priorities. Any order now to impose a new deadline for compliance must consider what work is necessary to publish the final rule and how quickly that can be accomplished. <p> The last paragraph of the opinion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-2370.htm">97-2370 -- FOREST GUARDIANS V. BABBITT -- 12/22/1998<BR></A><BR>
The administrative process was set in motion to list the Rio Grande silvery minnow as an endangered species and designate its critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and its subsequent amendments (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></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-5.gif" ALT="541"></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-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2172.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although the district court may have erred in dismissing the complaint as frivolous under 1915(d) since Sirois' claims are at least arguable. We nonetheless affirm on the basis that the error was harmless. The condition suffered as a result of the injection appears to have been relatively minor. There are no allegations of fever. Sirois was vague about the severity and duration of pain. It is acknowledged that the condition was treated after the filing of this complaint. We are persuaded that the complaint failed to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. Hinckley & Keddy were on brief. McCandless and Verrill & Dana were on brief. CMM claims to have created a promotional contest called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0790p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A district court may review a property owner's bona fide allegations that continuance of the project will cause irreparable harm to public health or the environment and. We will reverse its order denying injunctive relief. After trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination was discovered in the groundwater at two sites on Gamma Tech property. They were placed on the National Priorities List. After the decision was announced. The public and potentially responsible parties were given the opportunity to comment on the plan. At least some of the proposed wells have already been installed on the property. The final design was expected to be completed in the fall of 1993 and the remedial process begun in the spring of 1994. It is anticipated that the cleanup will be completed in five to seven years. Gamma Tech asserted that the EPA's selected remedy will exacerbate the existing environmental damage and cause further irreparable harm to the environment. The system devised by the EPA will cause contaminated water from the shallow strata of the aquifer to be drawn down into the deep zone where contamination has not been established conclusively.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/98-5265a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Wilma A. Horan were on the briefs for appellee/cross appellant. Was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Held that the SBA's actions were arbi trary and capricious. Who had intervened in the litigation and was deemed the party at fault. Were left in place. Was arbitrary and capricious. We agree with the district court that the SBA's action was not arbitrary and capricious and that dissolution of the preliminary injunction properly followed. Decline to opine as to the effect this finding may have in some speculative action on the contract brought in the Court of Federal Claims. 1997 self certification as small was erroneous. A determination that AMTEC was a large business entity. DSE maintained that the SBA's First Size Determination was arbitrary and capricious for failing to count the personnel of various alleged affiliates in assessing the total number of AMTEC employees. When the Area Office became apprised that AMTEC may have had additional and undisclosed affiliates.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7044a.html">A. LASHAWN V. BARRY JR. MARION S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0134p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Detroit and the State then sought and were granted an injunction in district court requiring the Corps to accept the Conner Creek dredged material at the Pointe Mouillee CDF. We held that: (1) there was no sovereign immunity barrier to the injunction as the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3829_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are licensed merchant marine officers. 98 Stat. 2863 (1984) (current version at 46 U.S.C. § 2114 (2002)).2 The plaintiffs claim that they were discharged in retaliation for engaging in statutorily protected correspondence with the United States Coast Guard (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/97-3313.htm">97-3313 -- MARCUS V. STATE OF KANSAS DEPT. OF REVENUE -- 03/23/1999<BR></A><BR>
The Department of Justice developed regulations requiring that where parking is provided for public buildings. That are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part. <p> <u>Id.</u>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-2709.ma3.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (3/15/2000, NO. 98-2709)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> At issue today is whether the Duval County. The total absence of state involvement in deciding whether there will be a graduation message. Who will speak. Is not state sponsored. Nor how autonomous the speaker may be in crafting her message.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case are straightforward. Other religious prayers or messages were traditionally offered. Student led prayer during the graduation ceremony so long as the administration and faculty were not involved in the decision making process. The memorandum was entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-2709.ma3.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (3/15/2000, NO. 98-2709)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> At issue today is whether the Duval County. The total absence of state involvement in deciding whether there will be a graduation message. Who will speak. Is not state sponsored. Nor how autonomous the speaker may be in crafting her message.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case are straightforward. Other religious prayers or messages were traditionally offered. Student led prayer during the graduation ceremony so long as the administration and faculty were not involved in the decision making process. The memorandum was entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED5DFDC70DDFDEE5882571A3008005FB/$file/0416001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
MCCORD tion of an ex parte temporary restraining order (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0MDItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5402-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) imposing a remedy disgorgement that defendants appellants allege is beyond the power of the federal courts. Defendants contend that the District Court's action was erroneous on several grounds. We consider two of the defendants' arguments in greater detail: (1) that the District Court should have allowed defendants to benefit from an exemption to the federal securities registration For reasons substantially similar to those articulated in this opinion. Franklin arose from the same district court proceedings and was argued befo re this Court in tandem with the instant cases. 1 2 requirements2 and (2) that the District Court exceeded its authority in granting equitable disgorgement of defendants' ill gotten profits. The facts below are drawn from the complaint of the SEC and the Cavanagh III opinion of the District Court. A Massachusetts corporation that was developing a fingerprint verification system. Prohibits the sale or delivery after sale of any security by means of interstate comm erce
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0340p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Insurers are not parties to the underlying litigation. VES and CFL were both wholly owned by James A. A receiver was appointed in the Liberte case for the Liberte funds still held by VES and CFL. The two receiverships were joined under a single Receiver. The injunctions read: It is further ORDERED that all creditors. They hereby are. Said entities are further stayed from executing or issuing or causing the execution or issuance out of any Court of any writ. The Insurers have pursued numerous independent actions to rescind or cancel fraudulently obtained policies. Page 3 fraudulent policies were the subject of one of the Insurer's. Attempts to intervene in a related case (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200501/02-7106a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Robert J. With him on the brief was Fritz Mulhauser. 2 Before: GINSBURG. The Commission retained ownership of the decorated donkeys and elephants and planned to sell them at auction after the exhibit ended. 3 The written announcement stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/05-7004a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Daniel O. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court dismissing a class action complaint. The main question is whether the court abused its discretion in refusing to certify the class. Because the suit was predominately or exclusively for monetary damages. Liability for loss [of her baggage] is governed by [the Warsaw Convention]
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042911np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. The software Voicenet/OTI use to provide that access is called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0019p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL & EMERY. WILL & EMERY. The plaintiffs in these four consolidated appeals are retirees or surviving spouses of the J.I. The underlying issue is whether the retirement health care benefits vested for life. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that their health care benefits are fully vested for life. The defendants are El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company and CNH America. Was established in 1842 and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Tenneco (now El Paso) in 1970. Included was all of the JI Case business (defined as the farm and construction equipment business of Tenneco) except for Tenneco's JI Case stock. Case Equipment was then spun off on July 1. Is now known as CNH America.2 In 1996. Tenneco merged with a subsidiary of El Paso Natural Gas Company and is now known as El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company. At times the opinion will refer to CNH America by its previous names. Page 3 forward contain the following language in Section 4A with respect to the Group Insurance Plans:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0327p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clause 4 of the United States Constitution is mandatory. The difficulty presented by redistricting that was to take effect for the regularly scheduled election in 2002. The 107th Congress was scheduled to adjourn on October 3. Tim Ryan was elected to the House by the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/04-7121a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was severely injured in an automobile accident and as a result required extensive medical care. She is the beneficiary of a health insurance plan administered by CapitalCare. Alleging that Senior Circuit Judge Edwards was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. * 3 CC/BCBS failed to pay benefits due under the plan. It was entitled to reimbursement because Alistaire received compensation from a third party for her injuries. Because Alistaire was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1941p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before us is an expedited appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1909.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that McCafferty is entitled to attorney's fees for prevailing on his Title I claim but he is not entitled to attorney's fees for his Title IV claim. Nominations were scheduled for March 1998. The recording secretary mailed a letter to McCafferty which included the following statements: There is no requirement to provide prospective candidates with a listing of contracted employers. Campaign Literature: Reasonable requests of any candidate for the Local to mail campaign literature at the candidates' expense will be complied with. Payment to cover the expenses involved in such mailing will be paid in advance. There will be no mailings of campaign literature by the Local. Special arrangements will be made to set up a separate room where the membership list will be available for inspection . . . . McCafferty apparently saw the Local's February 3 letter for the first time when it was filed with the court. Such a list was to be posted
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0009p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner is a gainfully employed legal immigrant in her early twenties who currently studies psychology at Wayne State University in Detroit. The agency would have processed her application before Petitioner's eighteenth birthday and she would now in all likelihood be an American citizen. Petitioner was never convicted of any crime. Her parents are citizens. Her siblings are citizens. The INS had the right under section 322(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/03/994263P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge. 3 This case arises out of the five state Central Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Compact (the Compact) and was last before the court on Nebraska's appeal from a preliminary injunction in favor of the Central Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Commission (the Commission). 1863 (1986) (reprinting the Compact which is cited in this opinion by article). The state selected to host a disposal facility is 4 required
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200211/01-5069a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. With him on the briefs was Margaret S. With him on the briefs were John Townsend Rich. Including with respect to coal operators who were not parties in the Eleventh Circuit litigation. Appellant Commissioner contends that the agency's nation wide implementation of the revised interpretation of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3900_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. FreeEats is a Virginia corporation that uses prerecorded telephonic messages to poll households. If a FreeEats call is not answered by a live person. FreeEats will attempt to call the number again up to three times. It did name several
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115410.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We decide whether damages are available under the Railway Labor Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0710n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Several benefit funds that are subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) joined by other organizations a local union. Was a party to a pre hire collective bargaining agreement which imposed an obligation to pay contributions to the appellee funds on behalf of covered employees. The suit alleged that appellant was delinquent in its contributions to appellees and sought an injunction against appellant. Appellant did not respond to the complaint and appellees moved for and were granted an entry of default as well as a temporary injunction. Appellant thereafter attempted to end its association with the union but was informed that its effort was an improper contract termination and that Bedrock Services was still bound to the collective bargaining agreement. A show cause hearing was scheduled and postponed until December 20. Appellant also filed a separate action in the Western District of North Carolina against the union to have the collective bargaining agreement declared null and void.
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTYyNDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-6248-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A liberal reading of Dotson's pro se appellate brief suggests that he raises the following challenges to the judgment of dismissal: (1) the district court should not have ruled 2 on the dismissal motion without hearing oral argument. (5) the court erred in ruling that Dotson's Bivens claim for money damages and his equitable action for reinstatement were precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1633.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Suzanne Hassell Milton were on brief for appellees. *Of the District of Massachusetts. We are constrained to dismiss this case without reaching the sensitive constitutional issue at the heart of the litigation. The Union represents individuals who presently are postal service employees. Some of those employees underwent drug testing before they were hired. The Union seeks a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional. The Union thus pursues remedies that will benefit only would be Union members.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1257.html">MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. THOMPSON<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/002387.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court also found that the defendant was not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause in the underlying contract signed by its subsidiary. We will affirm these rulings. We will reverse the grant of that injunction principally on the grounds of comity. The joint venture was encountering difficulties. Were unable to resolve their differences. The complaint sought damages as a result of lost sales and diversion of resources toward tasks that were the contractual responsibility of Moteren Werke. While these matters were proceeding in the District Court. The issue was submitted to a jury. Which found that Deutz was not entitled to arbitration. At the time the contract was signed. Deutz was known as Klockner Humboldt Deutz. It was the latter entity. We will refer to the company throughout this Opinion as
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200614927.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The basic facts of the underlying case resulting in Hill's death sentence are set forth in the decision of the Florida Supreme Court affirming Hill's conviction and death sentence on direct appeal. Hill has pursued various unsuccessful appeals and collateral proceedings seeking to have his conviction and death sentence overturned. Holding that Hill's action was effectively a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed without leave and. Which motion was denied by the district court on September 11. 3 Now. Were we to grant the relief that Hill seeks.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-6278.htm">96-6278 -- KIOWA INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA V. HOOVER -- 07/13/1998<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <strong><hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992508.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Griggs claimed that DuPont breached its fiduciary duty by leading Griggs to believe that he was eligible for a tax deferred lump sum distribution of early retirement benefits under DuPont's Temporary Pension System and then failing to notify Griggs when DuPont learned that Griggs's election to receive such a distribution was not permitted by federal tax laws. We conclude that Griggs is not necessarily without a remedy under ERISA. The SIP is a retirement savings vehicle akin to a 401(k) plan through which an employee's benefits accumulate on a tax deferred basis. TPS was designed to assist DuPont employees who were leaving their jobs at DuPont. A participant in TPS was entitled to one month of pay for every two years of service. Were not universally available to DuPont employees at all times. TPS benefits were offered to employees for a limited
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610783Op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A. Twenty years ago this month Arthur Rutherford was convicted and sentenced to death for the brutal murder of Stella Salmon. Which was the scheduled date of the execution. That issuance of it would be further delayed if a timely petition for rehearing were filed in the Supreme Court. He then would have 7 days from receipt of the State's brief to file a reply. Rutherford did not file his reply brief when it was due. The day Rutherford's reply brief was due we received a motion for a thirty day extension. One of the reasons his attorney gave for needing the extension was that she had taken an eight day vacation in the midst of the briefing schedule. Which is the date that Rutherford filed a mandamus petition in the Supreme Court and provided our Clerk's Office with a copy of it.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0034p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that female corrections officers have been treated differently from similarly situated male corrections officers and accordingly have been denied promotions. Though they did not specify the conduct they sought to have enjoined. Because Title VII cases in which plaintiffs seek individual compensatory damages are not appropriately brought as class actions under Rule 23(b)(2) because such individual claims for money damages will always predominate over requested injunctive or declaratory relief. I. Factual and Procedural Background The facts of this case have been stated in the two prior district court opinions and the prior decision of this court. We therefore adopt the background as set forth in the opinion of the first panel of this court to deal with this case: [Belmont] is a prison operated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. Some of whose positions are covered by Ohio's civil service laws while others are covered by collective bargaining agreements with three distinct unions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/022931P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even though federal courts have long disfavored
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1071.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. The action in the case at hand was a civil rights action. The successful claims were of constitutional dimension. Other claims were less successful. That they were entitled to even more. The long history of this hard fought litigation will not be repeated here. It is adequately told in the following opinions: Schneider v. The Colegio protests that there should have been no award at all for two reasons. Schneider was representing himself as well as Ramos and this. Plaintiffs are not prevailing parties. The fee award is simply too high for a number of reasons. Questions of law regarding the award of attorney's fees are reviewed de novo. The award is reviewed with deference and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTkwNjFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-9061_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Leval was thereafter added to the panel by random selection. Who received payments of disability benefits after the date he alleges they were due to be paid. The following facts were not in dispute: Plaintiff Douglas Dobson was employed as an anesthesiologist at the West Central Anesthesiology Group. The Plan was administered by defendant Hartford. Is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071231p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Similar nationwide claims were consolidated by a Multidistrict Litigation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4774801DB3C0004F88256E62007F2D2C/$file/0215936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge: At issue here is an alleged violation of section 404(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Chevron Corporation (Chevron) appeals from the injunction requiring it to modify its retirement plan records to reflect that six plaintiffs were involuntarily terminated by Chevron Product Company's Richmond. Eight plaintiffs who were denied relief four pursuant to pre trial summary judgment and four following trial cross appealed. The district court's jurisdiction was based on 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e). We have jurisdiction over Chevron's timely appeal and the timely cross appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Chevron's use of SITE at Richmond is the source of controversy here. Richmond is part of the Refining Division of the Chevron Products Company. Which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron. Plaintiffs were all
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3342.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a suit that is going nowhere. Charging that they had conspired to steal valuable prints by Salvador Dali that 2 No. 01 3342 he owned and to have him prosecuted on baseless charges of telephone harassment. Which holds that malicious prosecution is not a federal constitutional tort as long as the state provides a remedy) and Illinois state law. The principal ground on which the district court dismissed Bontkowski's suit was that the only relief he sought a declaratory judgment that Smith and Bront had violated his constitutional rights. Another injunction to prohibit lawyers employed by the federal government from representing Agent Smith was relief to which he was not entitled. The judge was of course correct. Smith was in charge of an investigation that resulted in criminal charges of fraud that have led to Bontkowski's being imprisoned. Though those charges are distinct from the charges of telephone harassment of which he complains in this suit. The more than suspicion that this suit is in retaliation for Smith's nailing Bontkowski for fraud brings the charges in it sufficiently within the scope of Smith's employment No. 01 3342 3 as an FBI agent to authorize his representation by the Justice Department.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1603.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Smith & Nevares were on brief. Santos Baerga and Pag n & Pag n were on brief. Plaintiffs are the owners in fee simple of a parcel of land in the Median¡a Baja Ward of the Municipality of Lo¡za in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. She alleges that the extraction of sand is the first phase of the development of a residential project. Plaintiffs appellants allege that although the sand extraction was incidental to the project. The permit was issued in December 1996. It averred that the construction permits requested for the development project were a subterfuge for obtaining a commercial sand extraction permit which would create an artificial lake without properly evaluating the individual and cumulative environmental impact on the surrounding area. Su rez notified the DNRE that its Cease and Desist Order was no longer valid because the Municipality's action had been dismissed. That she was going to resume extraction activities. Notified Su rez that the administrative proceedings against her were to continue and that any request or petition should be presented by motion in the administrative case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/963645P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Following Movants' appeal of this denial of injunctive relief is pending a trial before the court and an advisory jury. The Democratic and Republican candidates for United States Representative for Iowa's First Congressional District will appear on Iowa Press. Marcus is the Natural Law Party of Iowa (NLP) candidate for United States Representative in Iowa's Third Congressional District. Rusk is the Working Class Party candidate for United States Representative in Iowa's Third Congressional District. Cuddehe is the NLP candidate for United States Representative in Iowa's First Congressional District. Dimick is the NLP candidate for United States Representative in Iowa's Fifth Congressional District. Lamoureux is the NLP candidate for United States Representative in Iowa's Second Congressional District. Gratzon is the NLP candidate for the United States Senate in Iowa. Susan Marcus is a registered voter in Iowa who wishes to see these aforementioned political candidates debate with Democratic. The Democratic and Republican candidates for United States Representative for Iowa's Fourth Congressional District will appear on Iowa Press. broadcasting at 1. these Movants have brought this motion for emergency appearances
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1920VOL1.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Middleton</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. The Blind Vendors' claim is that New Hampshire did not give proper
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F926600A4349D40F88256E5A00707A66/$file/9936065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve is a place of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/97-4906.man.html">WEAVER V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. (4/13/1999, NO. 97-4906)<BR></A><BR>
Because the district court had already decided those claims (and entered final judgment) and the claims were therefore barred by the doctrines of res judicata and waiver. We hold that injunctive relief was improper because the defendant has an adequate remedy at law namely. The district court abused its discretion by entering the injunction.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Mary Weaver was an employee of Florida Power &. Her employment was terminated. Weaver claimed that this termination was in violation of state and federal laws prohibiting sex and handicap discrimination. Her claims under the collective bargaining agreement were proceeding to arbitration (pursuant to the agreement). Therefore the district court's resolution of that action was res judicata as to the arbitration. Concluding that an injunction was necessary to protect the integrity of its judgment. It is well settled law that the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over a case. <EM>See Griggs v. The district court entered its injunction while Weaver's appeal of her discrimination claims was still pending.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/97-4906.man.html">WEAVER V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. (4/13/1999, NO. 97-4906)<BR></A><BR>
Because the district court had already decided those claims (and entered final judgment) and the claims were therefore barred by the doctrines of res judicata and waiver. We hold that injunctive relief was improper because the defendant has an adequate remedy at law namely. The district court abused its discretion by entering the injunction.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Mary Weaver was an employee of Florida Power &. Her employment was terminated. Weaver claimed that this termination was in violation of state and federal laws prohibiting sex and handicap discrimination. Her claims under the collective bargaining agreement were proceeding to arbitration (pursuant to the agreement). Therefore the district court's resolution of that action was res judicata as to the arbitration. Concluding that an injunction was necessary to protect the integrity of its judgment. It is well settled law that the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over a case. <EM>See Griggs v. The district court entered its injunction while Weaver's appeal of her discrimination claims was still pending.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A21A1A97EE088475882569FC00622D20/$file/9936065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve is a place of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1798p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to review thefinal orders of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The Secretary of Banking at the time of the events we describe was Sarah W. This 1991 agreement was prompted when Meritor proposed that its 12% Subordinated Capital Noteholders (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-6808.opa.html">SIMMONS V. CONGER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Simmons v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal by a former circuit court judge in Alabama from the issuance of a permanent injunction against him. Absent a prior judicial determination that their public interest in a particular trial is outweighed by a specifically identified compelling state interest. Was organized as a nonprofit organization under Alabama law and was incorporated in June of 1990. Simmons is one of the founders of CCCFC. Was an Alabama Circuit Court Judge in the Sixth Judicial District in Tuscaloosa County until January 1995. At which time his term of office ended.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1629.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Coles with whom Coles and Mongue was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellees. *Of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The rule that was the catalyst of this controversy is a regulation. Ran afoul of the regulation and hence was barred by the Division from fishing for loligo squid in 1990 in the squid rich waters of Nantucket Sound and Vineyard Sound. Both the vessel length limitation on fishing and the quantity limitation on at sea processing were challenged on dual grounds. It was contended that the limitations constitute an undue burden on commerce. It was contended that the Massachusetts limitations are incompatible with supervening. Agreeing with the district court that the ninety foot rule is valid. Was named as an additional plaintiff. We will refer to plaintiffs collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-1039.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-6808.opa.html">SIMMONS V. CONGER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Simmons v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal by a former circuit court judge in Alabama from the issuance of a permanent injunction against him. Absent a prior judicial determination that their public interest in a particular trial is outweighed by a specifically identified compelling state interest. Was organized as a nonprofit organization under Alabama law and was incorporated in June of 1990. Simmons is one of the founders of CCCFC. Was an Alabama Circuit Court Judge in the Sixth Judicial District in Tuscaloosa County until January 1995. At which time his term of office ended.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1009.html">TEGAL CORPORATION V. TOKYO ELECTRON AMERICA, INC<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1981.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gelpi & Gotay and Ralph Diller were on brief for appellant. *Of the Second Circuit. Sanchez offered no defense in response to SMA's motion and was apparently unrepresented. He was actively pursuing an administrative remedy against SMA. While SMA's federal cause of action was pending. Asking that the complaint be dismissed on 3 3 the grounds that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction and that an action adjudicating the same issues was already pending in federal district court. The Commissioner held an administrative hearing at which evidence was presented. Concluding that the Commissioner did have jurisdiction and finding the doctrine of res judicata inapplicable. Res judicata Appellant SMA devotes a substantial portion of its brief to the argument that the federal court's original judgment constituted a final judgment with res judicata effect even though it was a default judgment. That proposition is correct. SMA argues that the Commissioner therefore erred in finding that res judicata did not apply and that the district court should not have deferred to the Commissioner's judgment. 5 5 The flaw in this argument is that the district court did not affirm the Commissioner's conclusion regarding res judicata as an appellate court might affirm a ruling of a lower court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-2136.htm">00-2136 -- JOSEPH A. V. INGRAM -- 01/07/2002<BR></A><BR>
<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021564.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: In this case we are called upon to interpret 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). Daniel Wagner is an autistic child covered by the IDEA. Daniel was receiving at home Lovaas therapy pursuant to an Individualized Educational Program (IEP) prepared by the Board of Education of Montgomery County (the
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIxMTJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2112_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal is taken from a March 18. Appellants challenge the reallocation to other creditors of stock warrants that were initially allocated to appellants under Metromedia's Plan. Without contesting that cash and stock allocated to appellants were properly reallocated to those creditors under the terms of a prior subordination agreement. Appellants argue that they are allowed to keep the warrants by virtue of an exception in that subordination agreement. Also argue that this appeal should be deemed equitably moot because numerous transactions have occurred since the Plan's September 8. Appellants' objections to the Plan were rejected on the merits by the bankruptcy court and the district court. the same time. The district court ruled that relief (if At 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 justified by the merits) would not have been barred by the doctrine of equitable mootness because effective relief could have been afforded without
</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/13824E6A148A258F88256C6500013FA3/$file/0035076.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Norton is substituted for her predecessor. Is withdrawn and replaced with the attached opinion. We reverse and hold that the only way to interpret subsection (b)(3)(A) in harmony with subsection (b)(3)(B) is by limiting the Service's discretion under (b)(3)(A) to the firm deadline imposed by subsection (b)(3)(B). Although the substantial information finding for the frog was issued pursuant to a court order in an unrelated case. Appellants petitioned to list the Great Basin Redband Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.) as threatened or This finding reflects the Service's conclusion regarding whether the petitioned action is or is not warranted. 1 6 BIODIVERSITY LEGAL FOUND. v. It sets forth procedures the Service is required to follow in making its determinations. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b). Within 90 days after receiving the petition . . . to add . . . or . . . remove a species . . . the Secretary shall make a finding as to whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. . . .[4] (B) Within 12 months after receiving a petition that is found under subparagraph (A) to present substantial information indicating that the petitioned The Service's explanation for the delays is budgetary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F91B4230881B4C68825731A00823BCA/$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="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1300.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1495.html">JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY V. CELLPRO, INC.<BR></A><BR>
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044254pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm because we agree with the District Court's analysis regarding the lack of evidentiary basis for the injunction. We will take this opportunity to clarify the scope of relief available under CFAA's provisions. 3 The seventeen Party City retail store plaintiffs are all franchisees of Party City Corporation (
</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=94-1067.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. Are Puerto Rico corporations. Complete diversity of citizenship between the parties was thus destroyed. Although this fact was not called to the district court's attention at the time. Arguing 2 that summary judgment was improper and that the district court erred in granting the permanent injunction. Mita is a California corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. An amendment Codefendants John Doe and Richard Roe are fictitious names used to refer to defendants whose names are unknown at present. Said defendants are the natural persons and/or corporate and/or judicial entities who together with MITA have conspired. John Doe and Richard Roe are citizens and residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and are also liable to plaintiff pursuant to the allegations mentioned hereinafter. (emphasis added). 4 filed on March 9. Inc. are. Said defendants are the corporate and/or judicial entities who together with MITA have conspired.
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/00-3057.htm">00-3057 -- STATE OF KANSAS V. U.S. -- 05/04/2001<BR></A><BR>
Assuming other requisites of the Act are . We have jurisdiction to review the . The contract would have authorized the Tribe to establish Class . Class II Indian gaming is that . Lands title to which is . Is . The owners of the land into the Tribe is alone not sufficient evidence of tribal authority to bring the . From concluding the NIGC's decision was the product of
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044254p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm because we agree with the District Court's analysis regarding the lack of evidentiary basis for the injunction. We will take this opportunity to clarify the scope of relief available under CFAA's provisions. 3 The seventeen Party City retail store plaintiffs are all franchisees of Party City Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6D97F8B7B9FAE018825730D00567A4F/$file/0356601.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Richard Sherman (Sherman) was the attorney for several defendants in an enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and in other actions in which those defendants were parties. Maintaining that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/993513.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. INTRODUCTION Before us is an appeal from the order of the District Court granting a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act (WDA or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/515D379334A1E95688256B7200622516/$file/0056696.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wenger was a guest speaker at a Guard social event known as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4826E273F5FC6C9D88256B9D0079FE97/$file/0056696.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2002 is amended as follows: Slip Op. at 3442: In the penultimate sentence of Section I of the opinion. Wenger was . . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-2083.man.html">LOGGERHEAD TURTLE V. COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (8/3/1998, NO. 97-2083)<BR></A><BR>
Whether another federally protected sea turtle should have been allowed to join the Turtles as a party. The brightest light is the moon's reflection off the surf. Vehicles and other types of beachfront lighting have been documented in the disorientation (loss of bearings) and misorientation (incorrect orientation) of hatchling turtles
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTY2MTAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6610-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A Bill of Lading for the shipment issued on that date indicated that the shipper was Chemlube International. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-2083.man.html">LOGGERHEAD TURTLE V. COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (8/3/1998, NO. 97-2083)<BR></A><BR>
Whether another federally protected sea turtle should have been allowed to join the Turtles as a party. The brightest light is the moon's reflection off the surf. Vehicles and other types of beachfront lighting have been documented in the disorientation (loss of bearings) and misorientation (incorrect orientation) of hatchling turtles
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/981424.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. was ordered to pay $60. The key issues raised in this case are whether General Instrument Corporation had standing to bring a suit under the Cable Act (Nu Tek's appeal) and whether statutory civil damages under the Act are limited to $60. The scope of the injunction and the calculation of the amount of attorney's fees are also at issue. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court on all issues. 2 I. The converted boxes were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/031896p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when prison officials sought a state court order authorizing them to force feed him after he went nine days without eating. We will affirm. Allegedly because he was not receiving legal material.3 He made threats. Was placed on further restriction even though he was already in the SMU. Walker claims to have begun a religious fast which he planned to continue for three to fifteen days. Walker was seen at least daily by prison medical staff. Walker was incarcerated in the Special Management Unit (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/062748P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Terrick Nooner is named as an appellee in the caption of this interlocutory appeal. Creating a substantial risk that the first injection (two grams of sodium thiopental) will fail to render him unconscious. The complaint references four prior executions alleged to have been
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031896p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when prison officials sought a state court order authorizing them to force feed him after he went nine days without eating. We will affirm. Allegedly because he was not receiving legal material.3 He made threats. Was placed on further restriction even though he was already in the SMU. Walker claims to have begun a religious fast which he planned to continue for three to fifteen days. Walker was seen at least daily by prison medical staff. Walker was incarcerated in the Special Management Unit (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/033018p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claudia Librett (
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/05/031294P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that First Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company was liable to Julie Parke under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. For prejudgment interest during the period in which Parke's benefits were wrongfully delayed. 2) the First Reliance's obligation to pay benefits is not at issue and has not been disputed since early in the litigation. 2002 judgment was entered. Because we have already denied Parke's motion to dismiss the appeal on this ground. We will simply point out that jurisdiction is proper when an appeal is filed within 30 days after a final decision is rendered by the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2003) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/010A5261AE3A08E788256AB4006DD2D5/$file/0055781.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0BBBC31B68DD202288256E5A00707C79/$file/0055781.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/146CAE45778009B388256C4700549E64/$file/0016024.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will & Emery. Who are independent insurance agents for Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0110p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Chippewa is a corporation chartered under the laws of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (a federally recognized tribe) and located on an Indian reservation in Michigan. When the Michigan State Police stopped a truck containing tobacco products that were being shipped to Chippewa by UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT X No. 03 1445 > . The truck's driver was Andrew Arch. Which is a violation of TPTA. The TPTA statutory scheme requires police to give notice to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5A465D90541B528288256AC00076D21D/$file/9916604.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we agree with the district court that removal was improper. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in California Superior Court alleging that head lice have become so resistant to the active ingredients in Defendants' products that the products
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/203A06B2D73972E688256E5A00707CB3/$file/9916604.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we agree with the district court that removal was improper. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in California Superior Court alleging that head lice have become so resistant to the active ingredients in Defendants' products that the products
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-2307.opa.html">KAIMOWITZ V. ORLANDO<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kaimowitz v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> This is an interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. While the action was pending. Finding that the injunction was not related to the <i>qui tam</i> action. (2) the district court erred in denying his motion for a preliminary injunction because restraint is necessary to keep the defendants from intimidating him. (3) the district court erred in failing to hold a hearing on his motion for an injunction.<p> Any review of the district court's denial of Kaimowitz' motion to amend his complaint is premature. This case is before the court as an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order denying Kaimowitz' request for a preliminary injunction. That order is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-2307.opa.html">KAIMOWITZ V. ORLANDO<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kaimowitz v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> This is an interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. While the action was pending. Finding that the injunction was not related to the <i>qui tam</i> action. (2) the district court erred in denying his motion for a preliminary injunction because restraint is necessary to keep the defendants from intimidating him. (3) the district court erred in failing to hold a hearing on his motion for an injunction.<p> Any review of the district court's denial of Kaimowitz' motion to amend his complaint is premature. This case is before the court as an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order denying Kaimowitz' request for a preliminary injunction. That order is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0CFE7744A3DD584188256C7D00041477/$file/9936086.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The action was brought in 1998 by a class of approximately 15. P. 23(a) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/012735.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants are New Jersey state court judges and the administrative director of the New Jersey courts.1 The District Court abstained under Younger v. We will affirm. *The Honorable John T. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S 1291. 2 I Plaintiffs. Are all under child support orders issued by the Superior Court of New Jersey. They were arrested and incarcerated for civil contempt of a court order.2 Plaintiffs allege violations of their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.3 Specifically. Plaintiffs contend they were indigent at the time of their hearings. They aver there is a great likelihood they will again be deprived of their asserted rights because in the future they will be obligated to appear in similar contempt hearings. 2. Anthony was arrested on April 19. Was released that same day after paying $125.00 toward his arrears. Pasqua was arrested on May 15. Pasqua was incarcerated until June 1. When she was released without having made any payment towards her arrearage. Tolbert was arrested on March 27.
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/M830.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McDermott Will & Emery LLP. With them on the brief were Paul Devinsky and Natalia V. Also on the brief were Terrence P. With her on the brief were James T. Of counsel on the brief were Albert L. With him on the brief was Pankaj Venugopal. Also on the brief were Constantine L. With her on the brief were William L. With him on the brief was Steven C. Of counsel on the brief was Judith M. With him on the brief were Jay R. Of counsel on the brief was Keith A. With her on the brief was Peter J. Of counsel on the brief were Robert C. Of counsel on the brief were Scott A.M. With him on the brief were Steven C. With her on the brief were Harold J. Also on the brief were Charles S. With him on the brief was Richard J. With him on the brief were Kenneth W. Also on the brief were Marc S. Of counsel was Herbert C Wamsley. With him on the brief was Monica Mucchetti Eno. With him on the brief was Simon J. Of counsel on the brief was Vicki G. With him on the brief was Philip J. Of counsel on the brief were Peter J. LLC (
</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/2004/01/02-2254.htm">02-2254 -- RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW V. KEYS -- 01/05/2004<BR></A><BR>
Papers filed in response to the petition for rehearing en banc have suggested this appeal has been mooted by events occurring after the entry of the opinion. We have obtained the viewpoints of Appellants and Appellees on this issue and have concluded the appeal is moot. Although the petition for en banc rehearing is still pending. Is not required to pass flows through the Isleta Reach. <p> 8. Whose contractual rights to water are reduced in order to meet the aforementioned flow requirements. <p> 10. Comply with the actions that are identified in the June 29. 2001 Biological Opinion until a new Biological Opinion is issued that contains a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative that avoids jeopardy. The parties agree all provisions of the injunction have either been met or were never invoked. We are informed that between the entry of the injunctive order and December 31. The answer is none. <p> The climatological circumstances that occurred during the appeal and the passage of time have rendered the injunction superfluous.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1503.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<U>Jessica Litman</U> were on brief. LLC</U> were on brief. They claim to have copied the proscribed code from the named defendants' web pages and assert that the injunction impermissibly interferes with their right to continue posting it on their
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411401.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Friedman claims that her premiums were raised in violation of certain statutory provisions of Florida law that were. The case was brought in state court and Friedman asserts that New York Life has violated Fla.Code § 625.65625. To pay a premium or contribution that is greater than such premium or contribution for a similarly situated individual enrolled under the policy on the basis of any health status related factor in relation to the individual or to an individual enrolled under the policy as a dependent of the individual. (b) This subsection does not: 1. We conclude that the district court was without diversity jurisdiction.2 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Friedman is a member of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). Her health plan is a group plan offered to AVMA members. There were three premium rating classes used by the AVMA: Standard. Friedman was placed in the Standard Plus 20 rating class at enrollment. Her premium was 20% higher than the Standard premium rating class. Standard Plus rates were 10% higher than the Standard premium rating class.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1517.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Luckerman</SPAN> was on brief. Russell</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DF1C96391787740D88256B83001A55B6/$file/0035076.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Norton is substituted for her predecessor. We reverse and hold that the only way to interpret subsection (b)(3)(A) in harmony with subsection (b)(3)(B) is by limiting the Service's discretion under (b)(3)(A) to the firm deadline imposed by (b)(3)(B). Although the substantial information finding for the frog was issued pursuant to a court order in an unrelated case. The Service made all the requested listing determinations in accordance with the district court's order. 1 The Service's explanation for the delays is budgetary. 4665 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK The ESA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to classify species of plants and animals facing extinction as endangered or threatened.2 16 U.S.C.§ 1533(a). It sets forth procedures the Service is required to follow in making its determinations. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b). Within 90 days after receiving the petition . . . to add . . . or . . . remove a species . . . the Secretary shall make a finding as to whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted . . . .[3] (B) Within 12 months after receiving a petition that is found under subparagraph (A) to present substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200316248.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Held that the agreements were unenforceable
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051053p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In two prior appeals we determined that the collective bargaining agreement gave Eastern's pilots a right of payment that was discharged in Continental's bankruptcy. Eastern's pilots have now turned their sights on Continental's pilots. We will affirm the District Court's decision that arbitration is precluded.1 I. Which assured Eastern's pilots a fair integration of pilot seniority Two published decisions of our Court have recounted much of the complex factual history of this case. Other parts of that history have been laid out in numerous court documents in the jointly filed appendix. There are no material disputes about these facts. The day after the CBA was ratified. We determined that the
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110107op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We determined that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the investments offered by Edwards were not
</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/79D70EA6168252BE88256A820062D30E/$file/9915625.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: While litigation concerning the constitutionality of a state statute was pending in state court. Holding that because the federal court plaintiffs could have intervened in the state court proceedings. They were obligated to do so. Each system is competent to decide federal constitutional issues. Each is entrusted with doing so in appropriate cases. Although there 8610 are limited circumstances in which such abstention by federal courts is appropriate. Those circumstances are
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-9008.opa.html">FEDERAL TRAD COMM'N V. GEM MERCHANDISING CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Federal Trad Comm'n v. To the extent repayment is not feasible. We affirm.<p> I.<p> <p> Gem Merchandising Corporation was quite successful in its business of telemarketing medical alert systems. 4) failing to disclose the costs a consumer would have to pay and the conditions a consumer would have to satisfy to obtain the prize of a vacation.<p> Alfred Estfan was the sole owner. He was aware that salespeople made material misrepresentations to consumers to induce sales. He was in a position to control the salespeople's behavior.<p> The Federal Trade Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/985468.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is a trade secret case filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by BP Chemicals Ltd. The undisputed facts are as follows. FCFC is a publicly traded Taiwanese corporation with its principal place of business in Taipei. FCFC is a subsidiary of a Taiwanese conglomerate known as the Formosa Plastics Group (FPG). Which is owned by Y.C. FCFC has a contract with JOC under which JOC will fabricate vessels in New Jersey for delivery to FCFC in Taiwan. It is performance of this contract that the instant action seeks to enjoin. The process for soliciting bids was that 4 FCFC's engineering team would prepare a bid package and send it to a purchasing group. That the purchasing group was actually the purchasing group of FPG. There is no evidence that any U.S. vendor received bid packages directly from FCFC. FCFC also has business contacts with the United States that are unrelated to its acetic acid plant project. Lummus is receiving daily faxes from FCFC in Taiwan. These sales were normally made in Taiwan through Taiwanese agents.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D18EB86B610C3B788256E5A00707BD6/$file/9915625.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: While litigation concerning the constitutionality of a state statute was pending in state court. Holding that because the federal court plaintiffs could have intervened in the state court proceedings. They were obligated to do so. Each system is competent to decide federal constitutional issues. Each is entrusted with doing so in appropriate cases. Although there 8610 are limited circumstances in which such abstention by federal courts is appropriate. Those circumstances are
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-9008.opa.html">FEDERAL TRAD COMM'N V. GEM MERCHANDISING CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Federal Trad Comm'n v. To the extent repayment is not feasible. We affirm.<p> I.<p> <p> Gem Merchandising Corporation was quite successful in its business of telemarketing medical alert systems. 4) failing to disclose the costs a consumer would have to pay and the conditions a consumer would have to satisfy to obtain the prize of a vacation.<p> Alfred Estfan was the sole owner. He was aware that salespeople made material misrepresentations to consumers to induce sales. He was in a position to control the salespeople's behavior.<p> The Federal Trade Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981808.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: In the wake of an announcement in April 1997 by Norfolk Southern Corporation and CSX Corporation that they were acquiring and dividing a major portion of the assets of Conrail. Gave notice under § 6 of the Railway Labor Act that it wished to renegotiate the terms of its collective bargaining agreements in light of the impact that the acquisition would have on the jobs of employees represented by the union. The district court ruled that the union's § 6 notice was invalid and that the union was required to present its position to the Surface Transportation Board which had exclusive jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Act to approve the terms and conditions of the acquisition. Conrail's assets were to be divided. They stated that under the transaction
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2150_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Caused it to transfer shares to McNamee and other persons by sales that purportedly were exempt from registration under §4(2) of the 1933 Act. Because they were not part of a public distribution. Demonstrating that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/002358.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This civil rights action mounts a Fourth Amendment challenge to a practice of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office which the parties have labeled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2386.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom <U>Wolfe Associates</U> was on brief. LLP</U> was on brief. The parties have stipulated that Borden. Borden contends that the plaintiffs are only due reinstatement in the Plan. Reimbursement for expenses incurred that would have been covered by the Plan. Plaintiffs assert that this remedy is inadequate and that they are entitled to additional equitable relief. Even though the estate was no longer legally obliged to pay those costs. We deny the plaintiffs' appeal and rule for Borden on the cross appeal.</FONT></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912527.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are the Venezuelan agency. Zamora were former shareholders and controlling board members of Corpofin. Inc. are business entities that are directly or indirectly controlled by the individual defendants. Several Venezuelan banks were forced to seek 3 financial assistance from FOGADE. Was one such bank. The individual defendants were minority shareholders and controlling board members of Bancor. Was owned by Corpofin. The individual defendants were also minority shareholders and controlling board members of Corpofin. Upon a finding that Corpofin was related to Bancor and that Corpofin had very large unguaranteed debts with Bancor. Who is responsible for marshaling the corporation's assets for the benefit of creditors. Those documents were dated May 9. The corporate structure was as follows: Corpofin. There is evidence that the May 9. 1994 transactions did not actually occur on that date but that the documents were instead backdated. Whether they were backdated or not does not enter into our decision.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2282.html">99A2282 -- O'BRIEN ENVIRNMT'L V. NRG ENERGY<BR></A><BR>
Because we conclude that Manus was entitled to relief because of excusable neglect on its part. We will reverse. <font size= 1>1. Is a corporation which. Appellees in this case are referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2282.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we conclude that Manus was entitled to relief because of excusable neglect on its part. We will reverse. 1. Is a corporation which. Appellees in this case are referred to as
</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/04/03/031046P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that it is severable from the invalid provisions. Chapter 222 specified criteria to be used by the Governor and the Commission in determining public use consistent with public necessity: A railroad's exercise of the right of eminent domain is a public use consistent with public necessity only if the use of eminent domain: (1) Has as its purpose providing railroad transportation to shippers in South Dakota. (2) Is proposed by an applicant with the financial resources necessary to complete the proposed construction . . . along with any related facilities . . . which are necessary to protect against harm to the public safety. (3) Is proposed by an applicant who has negotiated in good faith to privately acquire sufficient property without the use of eminent domain. (4) Is proposed by an applicant who has filed a plat. Rural water systems have the right to the use of the right of way for the placement of underground facilities. The Final Environmental Impact Statement stated: Eminent domain proceedings are regulated by state law and not administered by the Board.
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5059.html">CENTRAL ARKANSAS MAINTENANCE V. THE U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct96/94-9089.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Hardy United States Court of Appeals. The district court dismissed Hardy's action due to lack of jurisdiction after finding that there was no express unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity allowing recovery under
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Gore appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in which all claims were dismissed in favor of the employer/ERISA plan administrator El Paso Energy Corporation (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which were consolidated and transferred to the Northern District of Illinois by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. Against John Deep and corporations that are controlled by him and need not be discussed separately. Claim that Deep's
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court dismissed Hardy's action due to lack of jurisdiction after finding that there was no express unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity allowing recovery under § 524. Which was paid in full over the lifetime of the bankruptcy plan pursuant to the order of confirmation dated April 15. No factual findings were made. The facts as asserted by the debtor are. Hardy's account was settled. Hardy's account was clear. Hardy's Chapter 13 case was closed on April 11. The motion was granted on February 25. Relying on former bankruptcy code section 11 U.S.C. § 106 which delineates the waiver of sovereign immunity in bankruptcy cases and finding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred the imposition of monetary damages in this case where sovereign immunity was not unequivocally waived.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs are J. Who died after the suit was filed. Defendants are the District and Dr. Before this suit was filed. The District brought a state court action (which is still pending) to require Mother and P.P. to pay for special education services provided the children during a period when. The children were not residents of the District and therefore were ineligible for those services. Claiming that denial of the special education services received by the children from the District would have violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We hold that the district court should have stayed proceedings on the claims for damages and lacked jurisdiction to resolve the remaining claims
because of the pending state action. I. Background R.L. was autistic and his brother J.L. suffers from a milder learning disability. During that school year an anonymous informant told the District that the children were nonresidents. Mother assured the District that she and the children were residents.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re Hardy United States Court of Appeals. The district court dismissed Hardy's action due to lack of jurisdiction after finding that there was no express unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity allowing recovery under
|
|
TATE ACCESS FLOORS, INC V. INTERFACE ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
Argued for plaintiffs appellees.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Miller is a paraplegic. Miller is housed in disciplinary isolation in the
|
|
FOGADE, FONDO DE GARANTIA DE DEPOSITOS Y PROTECCION BANCARIA V. ENB REVOCABLE TRUST (8/28/2001, NO. 99-12527)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Lois J. With her on the brief were Gary J. Marzulla were on the brief for amici curiae City of Colorado Springs. Were on the brief for amici curiae State of New Mexico. Section 301(a) of the Act provides that the
|
|
FOGADE, FONDO DE GARANTIA DE DEPOSITOS Y PROTECCION BANCARIA V. ENB REVOCABLE TRUST (8/28/2001, NO. 99-12527)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Angel Mu oz Noya and Lespier & Mu oz Noya were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. Inc. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Powers was on brief for appellees Michael D. LLP 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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was the alter ego of defendant Didde Web Press Corporation (Didde Web Press). That Chromas was liable for breach of contract. That Chromas was not liable for fraud. Should have decided whether to pierce the corporate veil under an alter ego theory and that the damage award was irrationally high. By 1998 they were all owned by one company. 649.60 for a printing press that was never built and that. It was misled into making payments to Didde Web Press. A manufacturer of printing presses that was well on its way to bankruptcy. International thought it was really doing business with Chromas. Didde Web Press and Chromas were not strangers. Both were then owned by the Didde Corporation. International had to show that the separate corporate status between Chromas and Didde Web Press was invalid. The jury found that (1) the corporate veil should be pierced because Chromas was the alter ego of Didde Web Press. (2) Chromas was liable for breach of contract. (3) Chromas was not liable for fraud. Because the only other remaining defendants were in bankruptcy proceedings.
|
|
THE NAUTILUS GROUP V. ICON HEALTH AND FITNESS, INC.
Argued for plaintiff appellee. With him on the brief was Mark S. Argued for defendant appellant. On the brief were Larry R. Todd. Of counsel were Robyn L. Trademark to sell its exercise equipment. Nautilus is the holder of the ". Tab stops:.5in'>Nautilus and ICON are direct competitors in the market for home exercise equipment. Both produce resistance training systems that use bendable rods. In Nautilus's product. The rods are arranged vertically. Outward. The rods are structured to resist this outward movement. 000 machines have been sold. The bendable rods are arranged horizontally so that they bend downward. Is replaced by a circular crosshairs. Beneath the mark. Line height:200%'>While its appeal of the patent infringement issue was pending.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will refer to the student plaintiffs individually. Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to damages under California Civil Code § 52 (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who are radiation oncology service providers. The United States had suspended the administrative process pending judicial determination in this case of whether the oncology service providers defrauded HCFA and whether they are entitled to reimbursement. The United States alleges that the defendants claimed reimbursement on bills for radiation oncology services that were neither provided nor ordered by the physician and on bills for unnecessary radiation oncology services. That the defendants misrepresented the medical services rendered in order to obtain both higher and double reimbursements for services. 7 Before this action was commenced. Took the position that the administrative process should be suspended until judgment was reached in this action because the administrative forum was neither intended nor sufficient to deal with cases of Medicare fraud. A step that is a condition precedent to the providers' right to challenge HCFA's position through the administrative process. The United States also took this position before the district court (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is a class action lawsuit brought by early retirees in the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan (AK Steel Plan) who elected to receive their pension benefits under the Plan in the form of a lump sum payment. The AK Steel Plan is a cash balance plan specifying that participants can elect to receive a lump sum equal to their
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellant. Corcoran with whom Gleeson & Corcoran was on brief for appellee. The issue at the core of the dispute is whether Local 600M had properly assumed the mantle of two smaller. The Demise of Locals 109C and 139B The relevant facts are undisputed. Sullivan Brothers is a commercial printing concern located in Lowell. Local 109C was the larger of the two locals. Approximately ten of whom were employed by Sullivan Brothers. Were the only local officers or directors remaining in office. Were transferred to Local 600M with no 1. That document is then put to a secret ballot vote and. A new charter is issued to the new entity. Are accepted by. There was still no leadership.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Asserting a variety of constitutional and statutory claims as to why the senate was acting impermissibly in seeking to void the special 1 OPHELIA FORD. The senate itself (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On page 24. The last sentence in the second paragraph
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
|
|
U.S. VALVES V. DRAY, ROBERT F.
Of counsel on the brief was Mark D. The application for the latter patent was also continued in part and resulted in Dray s U.S. Dray was the majority shareholder and Bobby Dray was in charge of operations. The agreement itself was not memorialized in writing. Dray was completely dissociated from U.S. Dray asserts that the sliding ring valve is ". Claims that the sliding ring valve is sufficiently similar to the Dray valve to be covered by the license agreement. See U.S. He was unsatisfied by the information he was able to obtain. Any claim he may have in connection with non conforming royalties for sales to Van Dorn Demag. Valves that he considered the company to have violated the license agreement. The suit was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Dray s motion. Dray also appealed the district court s determination that he was liable for violating the license agreement. Asserting that it was insufficient to compensate for future harm. Jurisdiction is the first issue before this court. See.
|
|
CROCKER HOBART V. PIEDMONT AVIATION
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
VONDERHARR were injured. The Trust is an employee benefit plan governed by Section 3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Hoffman was one of approximately 950. Operated a risk retention group insuring group members who were obligated to contract holders that had purchased VSCs from those group members. National Warranty's primary place of business was Lincoln. Nebraska and all of its business and assets were located within the United States. We agree with the bankruptcy appellate panel there are three main issues: whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the matter. Whether injunctive relief was appropriate. Whether the injunction was too broad. There is also a secondary issue involving the bankruptcy court's denial of discovery. The first question before us is whether the bankruptcy appellate panel erred in upholding the bankruptcy court's decision to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the present matter. Ancillary jurisdiction is triggered by a foreign representative filing a petition showing the commencement of a foreign proceeding. Hoffman challenges the bankruptcy court's finding the Cayman Islands liquidation was a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Change spelling of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appellees were awarded front pay and injunctive relief under Title VII. I. Helms and Ey were employees at the Adam's Mark until they were discharged on September 12. 2 1991 performance review said he
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is protected by the Eleventh Amendment from suit in the underlying action an issue the Governor failed to raise in the district court prior to this appeal. The maximum penalty for violating the statute is a fine of two hundred dollars. Traffic infractions are treated as misdemeanors. Traffic infractions are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Robert J. With him on the brief were Charles F.B. A class of former D.C. government employees whose disability compensation benefits have been terminated. District employees who are injured in the performance of their duties are entitled to monetary compensation. The CMPA was amended subsequent to the district court's grant of summary judgment. 3 employee's disability is partial or total. Is further based on a statutory schedule. After an employee is determined to be disabled. Which of course is the governing statutory standard. To a benefits termination decision and also that the District's termination procedures were inadequate in their explanations of termination decisions and beneficiaries' appellate rights. The court went on to observe that the program's formal pre termination procedures were less elaborate than those sanctioned in Mathews. Beneficiaries were given thirty days of continued benefits after receiving an initial termination notice. The district court expressed concern that the District's pretermination procedure was not set forth in any formal general regulation or handbook.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on December 13. Filed pro se a complaint under section 1983 in the Middle District of Florida and alleged that the lethal injection protocol used by the Florida Department of Corrections will cause him unnecessary pain and subject him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The background of the underlying case that led to Diaz's death sentence is described in the decision of the Florida Supreme Court that affirmed Diaz's conviction and death sentence on direct appeal. To have his conviction and death sentence overturned. It is apparent that he petitions for an order temporarily enjoining the State from carrying out his execution until his appeal of the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction can be decided.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appeals on the ground that the relief granted to him was insufficient. We uphold the district court on the merits but conclude that its injunction was insufficiently broad to cure the constitutional violation involved in this case. Warnock is an art teacher and part time bus driver for the Devalls Bluff School District. Warnock challenged the requirement that he attend meetings and training where prayers were recited. He was time barred from making any Title VII claims. Were protected by the first amendment's free speech and free exercise clauses. The court concluded that while there was evidence that students and fellow teachers harassed Mr. Warnock is required to attend and from requiring Mr. Warnock to attend in service training at denominational colleges where prayers are offered.1 In addition. The district court's resolution of these issues is not before us on appeal. 3 1 On appeal. This is a question of law that we review de novo. Although the cases are quite clear that government mandated prayer for students in public schools is impermissible.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Murphy and Menard Murphy & Walsh were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. On the basis that the action was preempted by federal law. While Doulamis is not named as the aggrieved employee in these charges. Both parties agree that the employee referred to therein is. It is also alleged that these employees formed. That Chaulk's conduct was a deliberate attempt to discourage the employees from engaging in these activities. A full and comprehensive settlement agreement was reached between Chaulk and the NLRB in March 1995 regarding these claims. In that the
|
|
CONOCO, INC. V. DEPT. OF ENERGY
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Whether the other three defendants named in the complaint were served is not clear from the record before us. The other defendants named in the complaint are not parties to this proceeding. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Summarized the provisions of the Act with which we are here concerned. As follows: The Act provides in pertinent part that it is unlawful for a commodity trading advisor. A commodity trading advisor is defined as any person who. Web and Asaro argued that they were incapable of
violating the Act because they did not meet the definition of a commodity trading advisor as set forth in the Act. On this basis the district court determined that the Commission was entitled to a preliminary injunction against Web. The district court concluded that he was not a part of the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.1 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY PGI is the employer sponsor and named fiduciary of the Pressman Gutman Co. Throughout this opinion we will refer to the petition as seeking only a writ of mandamus as all the relief PGI seeks is available through mandamus. Even though the facts relating to defendants' liability are in sharp dispute. The pertinent facts material to our disposition of these matters are undisputed. We note that each party in these contentious proceedings accuses its opponent of improperly citing material outside the record in contravention of the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
As the parties are all too familiar with the factual background. We include only such factual and procedural events as are necessary to our decision. Which is a particularly carcinogenic type of asbestos. The actions of these three groups of plaintiffs (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Was on brief. Was on brief. Was the target of acquisition efforts by Mark IV Industries. Anthony Aldrich (against whom the Commission did not file a complaint) were the sole shareholders of a consulting firm. Had nonpublic information that Purolator and Mark IV were involved in negotiations regarding Mark IV's acquisition proposal. That Aldrich was on the Purolator board and he stated.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
On appeal we consider three questions: (1) whether Reschini's appeal is moot. (3) if jurisdiction in the district court is not precluded. Whether dismissal of this suit was nevertheless required on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cognizable cause of action. Depositors in a federally chartered mutual savings association are. [fn1] notwithstanding that the proprietary interest of a depositor member in a mutual savings association is a chimera. It is ownership in name only. A special meeting of Association members was held. The conversion plan was approved by the members. The proposed conversion was pending before the OTS but had not yet been approved. Or set aside the order of the OTS Director approving the proposed conversion.[fn3] We are. At pains to point out that the petition for review ¾ an invocation of this court's appellate authority with respect to certain decisions of the OTS Director ¾ has not yet been briefed and argued and is not the subject of this opinion. We address the contention of the Association and France that this appeal is moot because the special meeting that Reschini sought to enjoin has already occurred and the Association has already converted to a Pennsylvania chartered savings bank.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The request for rehearing en banc is denied. 3085 3086 WINN v. Dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc: The decision in this case sharply limits the traditional restraints on federal judicial interference with state tax systems and is in conflict with the position of the Sixth Circuit. The Arizona statute at issue grants a tax credit of up to $500 a year for taxpayer contributions to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was in good faith as a matter of law. The four principals are LIM's only employees and Feinstein's employees at Corporate Consultants perform LIM's clerical and bookkeeping work. This transaction was its first sale.1 Through the end of 1995. Is significant because on that the date AT&T announced the creation of LTI to the public through a huge media campaign. LTI's Adoption and Use of the Name and Mark LUCENT LTI is the telecommunication and technology business spun off from AT&T in 1996. LIM amended the application after this suit was filed to claim the September 5. At the same time the law was revised to provide that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
They claim that because the summary plan descriptions (SPDs) issued by Blue Cross in connection with their respective plans stated that there was no calendar year deductible. We will vacate the district court's class certification order and remand the case for further proceedings. The Funding Plus Plan is an
|
|
96-3343A -- ELLIS V. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER -- 12/21/1998
Is corrected as follows. The statutory citations are corrected to read
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Defendant Professional Engineers in California Government (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Awarding monetary and injunctive relief in favor of the United States following a civil jury trial at which defendants were found to have violated reporting requirements of the Controlled Substances Act. 2 which awarded the United States a $2 million monetary penalty and injunctive relief after a civil jury trial at which defendants were found to have repeatedly violated a provision of the Controlled Substances Act (the
|
|
96-3343 -- ELLIS V. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER -- 12/21/1998
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Weissberg & Garin were on brief. Kane and Hanify & King were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. The history of the conflict is of minimal import. The agreement contemplated the phasing out of the existing Charles Street jail once the new structure was in place. The new facility (the Nashua Street jail) was not completed until mid 1990 and was hard pressed from the start to cope with the Sheriff's escalating needs. The consent decree was modified by court order in 1985. He thereupon granted the Sheriff's motion to 1Notwithstanding the several emendations that have been made to the original consent decree. Apply the Act and evaluate the extent of the remediation to which the defendants are entitled. The PLRA is not a paragon of clarity. A defendant or intervenor shall be entitled to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn. Is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
|
|
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES V. CHROMALLOY GAS TURBINE CORP
With him on the brief were Rhett R. Of counsel on the brief were Donald R. With him on the brief was David J. Of counsel on the brief were Michael G. It was to be listed in Pratt's engine manual as a
|
|
BENDER V. CENTRUST MORTGAGE
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Bender v. We find the preliminary injunction issues to enjoin the sale and post bond are moot. We affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing the constructive trust claim.<p> <i>BACKGROUND</i><p> <p> There is no dispute that pursuant to the provisions of 12 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0130p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 03 1334 Decree explicitly stated that it was intended by the parties to assure the constitutionality of the conditions under which prisoners are incarcerated at SPSM CC. The district court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree until compliance was achieved. Section 802(b)(2) of the PLRA entitles the defendant
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2000.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<U>Goodwin Proctor LLP</U> were on brief. With whom <U>Seyfarth Shaw</U> was on brief. 18 U.S.C. § 1030.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0442p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs Appellants are five Ohio residents who served as members of a committee to qualify Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo (hereinafter. Because the district court's dismissal of Appellants' declaratory judgment claim rested upon grounds that are immune from challenge due to the 2004 election's mooting Appellants' case. The district court's judgment cannot be vacated and the appeal is thus moot. A person is not eligible to be a circulator
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/92-4669.opa.html">BENDER V. CENTRUST MORTGAGE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bender v. We find the preliminary injunction issues to enjoin the sale and post bond are moot. We affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing the constructive trust claim.<p> <i>BACKGROUND</i><p> <p> There is no dispute that pursuant to the provisions of 12 U.S.C.
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/11/016025P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because he was not physically residing at the 875 Laurel address at the time he filed his Chapter 13 petition. Which was the address of the property where he was living while he and his wife were separated and when he filed his bankruptcy petition. This time on the ground that Alexander was not physically residing at that property when he filed his petition and. Granting the Trustee's objection and ruling that 875 Laurel was not exempt in Alexander's case because he was not physically living in the residence on the day he filed his bankruptcy petition. While the appeal was pending in the Eighth Circuit. While the appeal was pending in the Eighth Circuit. That Alexander was not residing at the 875 Laurel address when he filed his original petition. While all this was going on in Alexander's case. She was living at 875 3 Laurel Avenue with their minor son and Alexander was residing at the 175 North Lexington address. 175 per month which she said was the result of an agreement between Alexander and herthat she pay him rent while they were separated.
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-8001.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are 27 current or former employees at the Indianapolis plant of International Truck & Engine Corp. Their best option was to quit. P. 23(a) have been satisfied but declined to allow plaintiffs to represent others similarly situated: the presence of individual claims made class treatment of damages imprudent. Plaintiffs have filed a petition under Rule 23(f) seeking interlocutory review of this decision. The parties' comprehensive submissions show not only that immediate review would promote the development of the law governing questions that have escaped resolution on appeal from final decisions. It is better to act summarily on this interlocutory matter than to delay the proceedings during full dress appellate review. The difficulty is that employees may prefer to litigate damages claims on their own behalf. May have a constitutional entitlement to do so. While class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) usually means that class members will not be allowed to opt out. Unless persons with significant damages No. 04 8001 3 claims are allowed to opt out of the class to the extent that the litigation concerns financial relief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011823.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 1 the paragraph is corrected to begin
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/041443P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kline have been employed by the Kansas City. An understanding of certain aspects of the discrimination claims litigated in the first suit is necessary to this appeal. We held that the district court erred by admitting only evidence recited in the EEOC complaint because all of the work circumstances were relevant to the hostile environment claim. That the error was harmless in that instance. Kline prevailed on the issue of liability with regard to her hostile environment claim in Kline I so the clothing and facilities evidence could only have made an impact on the issue of damages. We concluded that there was no harm because the clothing and facilities conditions
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/952529P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Codified The excise tax is The HONORABLE BRUCE M. A person shall pay an excise tax at the rate of three percent on the purchase price of any motor vehicle . . . purchased or acquired for use on the streets and highways of this state and required to be registered under the 2 a one time assessment collected by the county in which the owner resides when the vehicle is first licensed in the state. Payment of the excise tax is required for the issuance or transfer of state vehicle title. Is thus a condition precedent to registration and issuance of state license plates.2 state highway fund. misdemeanor. The proceeds are allocated to the Failure to pay the excise tax is a South Dakota Codified Laws section 32 5 5 imposes a separate motor vehicle registration fee on state residents. 5 5. 3 S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 32 The annual fee is based on the weight of the vehicle and ranges from $20 to $40 for average noncommercial laws of this state. Failure to pay the full amount of excise tax is a Class 1 misdemeanor. Which is not challenged by the parties in this case. 3 2 The statute provides: Subject to the provisions of §§ 32 5 17 to 32 5 45.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-10872.man.html">PLANETARY MOTION, INC. V. TECHPLOSION, INC. (8/16/2001, NO. 00-10872)<BR></A><BR>
Both of which accompanied the release.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-10872.man.html">PLANETARY MOTION, INC. V. TECHPLOSION, INC. (8/16/2001, NO. 00-10872)<BR></A><BR>
Both of which accompanied the release.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1135.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. We hold that under the new law such stays are guided by essentially the same standard that informs the grant or denial of preliminary injunctions. Only after we have set the stage do we turn to the issues that confront us.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1086.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The proponents of this view argue that the federal courts are overburdened. We have little doubt that this case would have been better brought in an Indiana state court. It was the appellee that chose to file its complaint in federal court and it was that complaint which sought novel remedies. Although we are not fans of delay. It is with limited sympathy that ultimately we must certify several of the questions raised in this appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court. DFS purchased
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511527.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They assert that these tax provisions so seriously underfund public education in Alabama that they have a segregative effect on Alabama's colleges and universities. I. This case was filed in 1981. Curriculum policies at The United States Department of Education informed Governor Fob James and the various university presidents that there were vestiges of a prior de jure segregated system of higher education in Alabama. Was permitted to intervene. 2 1 historically white institutions. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they are traceable to the State's prior de jure system of segregation in higher education. The burden shifts to the State to prove that these policies do not have a continuing segregative effect. We reviewed the If the State is unable to show that the challenged policy has no continuing segregative effects. The State may nevertheless escape liability if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/02-1195.htm">02-1195 -- MONREAL V. POTTER -- 05/17/2004<BR></A><BR>
Engages in a pattern or practice of discrimination against Hispanic management level employees and that its policies have a disparate impact on these employees. If the counseling is unsuccessful. Medina and Figueroa) filed with the USPS individual complaints of race discrimination and retaliation.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0085p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issues before us in this interlocutory appeal are (1) whether a death row inmate's claim against lethal injection itselfas opposed to a precursor procedureis properly considered to be a habeas action or one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. When execution is imminent or at some earlier stage in state and federal 1 RICHARD WADE COOEY. (3) whether res judicata is a bar to a death row inmate's claim concerning the means and methods of execution when similar issues were raised. Or the specific claim could have been raised. The sodium thiopental is designed to anesthetize the prisoner and render him unconscious. Dennis and Cooey asserted that if the sodium thiopental is not administered properly and in sufficient dosage. They also maintained that to subject the prisoner to such excruciating pain while he is still conscious would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. They also alleged that the personnel attending to the executions are inadequately trained and. As to the issue of whether Cooey's claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1335.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Meyer & Soloman were on brief for Conservation Law Foundation. P.A. were on brief for Town of Newington. Were on brief for the federal parties. Were on brief for State of New Hampshire and Pease Development Authority. Senior District Judge. whether defendants have complied with various federal environmental laws that apply to the conversion of land on Pease Air Force Base (Pease) in New Hampshire to civilian use incident to the base's closure. Several other interested parties have intervened and. Plaintiffs have appealed from the dismissal of their CAA claims and the denial of injunctive relief. The federal defendants have cross appealed from the finding that they violated CERCLA. Have not appealed the district court's order directing them to prepare a Supplemental FEIS. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Also before us are petitions filed by CLF and Newington to review an order of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approving PDA's airport development plan. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. app. 1486(a) and deny the petitions with respect to the CAA claim and retain jurisdiction of the NEPA claim pending completion of the Supplemental FEIS.
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0098p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The City's Director of Public Service had advised him that the City was granting permits on a
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/058EC3532F25D02588256F1C0052B980/$file/0016531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Weston was on the briefs. 13936 DREAM PALACE v. Was on the briefs. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 13937 adult oriented businesses were associated with
</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.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept97/96-1086.wpd.html">ROE V. CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN CONFERENCE RESORT, INC.<BR></A><BR>
I Plaintiff appellant Jane Roe (a pseudonym used for purposes of privacy) is an accounts manager for the defendant appellee Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort (hereinafter CMCR or simply defendant). Is used extensively by major corporations. Were given copies of the Policy and told that their (1) Honorable Joseph F. Sitting by designation. written consent to the Policy and their adherence to its requirements were mandatory for their continued employment. Drugs and illegal substances are the policy of CMCR. Adherence to these rules is a condition of employment: 1. Employees are strictly prohibited from possessing. Employees are strictly prohibited from possessing. Any prescribed or over the counter drug or medication that has been illegally obtained or is being used in an improper manner. 3. In CMCR vehicles or on CMCR property or to the property to which they have been assigned in the course of their employment. Prescribed drugs may be used only to the extent that they have been reported and approved by an employee supervisor and that they can be taken by the employee without risk of sensory impairment and/or injury to any person or employee.
</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=00-2492.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Duncan</U> were on brief. <U>Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyOTItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3292-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Town is located in Orange County. Meyers was Town Supervisor. Was chairman of its governing body. The Ambulance Corps is a New York not for profit corporation organized to. Many of the events prior to February 2004 are not in dispute and are set forth below as found by the district court in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated April 20. The Ambulance Corps was initially funded through contributions from members of the community. The contract covering calendar year 1974 also stated that the Town
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-9215.man.html">BICKERSTAFF CLAY PRODUCTS CO. V. HARRIS CTY.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bickerstaff Clay Products Co. v. Vacate in part.<p> I.<p> <p> A.<p> <p> The property in question is a landlocked 161 acre tract located in southwest Harris County. Which would have final authority over all zoning decisions. Which is the designation given to vacant property.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></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-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-9215.man.html">BICKERSTAFF CLAY PRODUCTS CO. V. HARRIS CTY.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bickerstaff Clay Products Co. v. Vacate in part.<p> I.<p> <p> A.<p> <p> The property in question is a landlocked 161 acre tract located in southwest Harris County. Which would have final authority over all zoning decisions. Which is the designation given to vacant property.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/005251.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an extremely complicated motor vehicle dealer franchise termination case marked by disputes over what is known in the industry as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTcyNzQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7274-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have previously characterized the IDEA as part of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/983586P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-5032.htm">01-5032 -- GARRISON V. BAKER HUGHES OIL FIELD OPERATIONS INC. -- 04/19/2002<BR></A><BR>
Arguing: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. We look at those in terms of where we are placing people for possible future injuries.... <p> ... <p> Well. The positions that we were looking at you for are those positions that would put you in a position to likely be injured again and we don't do that. <p> Mr. Garrison sued Centrilift in federal district court alleging he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F0029609F01B5F6A88256FBF00779D73/$file/0217305.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are presented with three questions. The first is whether. It is feasible to join the Navajo Nation as a party. We hold that it is feasible to join the Nation in order to effect complete relief between the parties. Because the EEOC is an agency of the United States. The second is whether the EEOC's claim presents a nonjusticiable political question. The third is whether the district court erred in dismissing the EEOC's claim that Peabody failed to keep records as required by Title VII. They are qualified. 493 (2003) (explaining that the Department of the Interior's approval is necessary before the leases become effective). If the lease terms are violated. Alleging that Peabody was unlawfully discriminating on the basis of national origin by implementing the Navajo employment preference. As well as unspecified other non Navajo Native Americans for positions for which they were otherwise qualified. On the Navajo and Hopi reservations and on the tribes' joint land have been extensively litigated. Navajo employment preference provisions also have been the subject of prior litigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1285.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McLaughlin was on brief for appellees. Lionel Bolduc was the sole applicant for the loans. BankEast's commitment letter was addressed only to him. The couple was not represented by counsel at the closing. They were told by the bank that requiring her signature was standard procedure. Although the Bolducs were apparently business partners and had extensive real estate interests. BankEast's insistence that Maureen Bolduc co sign the notes may have violated ECOA's bar on discrimination based on marital status. The Bolducs were unable to meet the repayment schedule on the 1987 loans. The FDIC was appointed receiver. The FDIC did not foreclose on the second mortgages secured by the Hudson home and the Merrimack land even though the proceeds from the original collateral were not enough to satisfy the balance due on the 1987 notes. The court found that an injunction was consistent with the equities and the public interest. That their suit is barred by the ECOA statute of limitations. That it is barred by the D'Oench.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-8917.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This claim was later adjudged to be a general unsecured claim. After the case was converted to Chapter 7. Before the case was closed. Neither party requested that the bankruptcy court determine whether the taxes accrued in 1980 84 were discharged. Alleging that the Department of Revenue violated the discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C. § 524(a) by sending the demand letter for unpaid state income taxes.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-8917.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This claim was later adjudged to be a general unsecured claim. After the case was converted to Chapter 7. Before the case was closed. Neither party requested that the bankruptcy court determine whether the taxes accrued in 1980 84 were discharged. Alleging that the Department of Revenue violated the discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C. § 524(a) by sending the demand letter for unpaid state income taxes.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/95-1032.wpd.html">SYSTEMCARE, INC. V. WANG LABS. CORP.<BR></A><BR>
(3) Chanute is factually distinguishable. We are without jurisdiction to review it on appeal. We hold that the district court did have jurisdiction over the case. Many of Wang's customers have entered into WSS contracts with Wang. Wang responds that customers are not compelled to purchase its hardware services with its software services because both types of service are separately available on a
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/99-3141.htm">99-3141 -- NATIONAL ELECTRIC CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION INC. V. KANSAS CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION INC. -- 02/02/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3422.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND We assume familiarity with our earlier opinion and will repeat only those facts that are necessary for resolving the issues presently before us. The LCP is an eighteen month program that uses military training methods to teach
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-2254.htm">02-2254 -- RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW V. KEYS -- 06/12/2003<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992459.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that these State parties were indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Are subject to review by State public service commissions and thereafter. The parties found themselves in a dispute over whether Bell Atlantic had to pay reciprocal compensation for its subscribers' telephone calls made to Internet Service Providers (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/00-14413.op2.html">ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION V. CITY OF ATLANTA DEP'T OF AVIATION (2/28/2003, NO. 00-14413)<BR></A><BR>
Is permitted to assess profit conscious fees on expressive activities for use of distribution facilities in a non public forum. The district court found that the assessment of any fee in excess of administrative costs was contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and precedent in this circuit under <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/95-4071.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK MACHINE AND ENG. CO.<BR></A><BR>
Are. See 50 U.S.C. 1431 36 (granting agency head authority to provide extraordinary relief to a contractor when a contract is deemed essential to the national defense). The default clause provided that if the government's default termination was proper. That if the government's default termination was improper. They are the Rules pertinent to the instant case. References hereinafter will be to the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/00-14413.op2.html">ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION V. CITY OF ATLANTA DEP'T OF AVIATION (2/28/2003, NO. 00-14413)<BR></A><BR>
Is permitted to assess profit conscious fees on expressive activities for use of distribution facilities in a non public forum. The district court found that the assessment of any fee in excess of administrative costs was contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and precedent in this circuit under <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032773p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Its implementing regulations1 are preempted because its solid waste disposal facility involves transportation by railroad and is therefore subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5395a.html">FREEMAN CLYDE V. FDIC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/95-2078.man.html">HUNT V. HAWTHORNE ASSOC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hunt v. Hunt is a retired Eastern Air Lines (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C650D00416F8109288257265005D0694/$file/0456470.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal stems from a quiet title action that began in Los Angeles Superior Court but was resuscitated in federal court after the California courts ruled against appellants John and Anne Henrichs (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/95-2078.man.html">HUNT V. HAWTHORNE ASSOC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hunt v. Hunt is a retired Eastern Air Lines (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0388p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Against a civil action in which Amedisys is the plaintiff. Amedisys is a Louisiana corporation supplying home nursing services. Because the Louisiana action is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F43A980D299ECAF988256FA8007A2836/$file/0215035.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Were substituted as counsel for the appellant after oral argument. Was on the brief. Were on the brief for amicus curiae The Chamber of Commerce of the United States. INC. 1837 advertising program is rendered moot by a settlement under which the vendor permanently modified its software and the website owner relinquished all claims. I Gator.com Corporation1 is the proprietor of a software program that enables computer users to store personal information including addresses. One of the targets of Gator's pop up advertisements was the website operated by L. When a user of computer equipment on which the Gator software was installed visited L. L. Bean alleged that these pop up advertisements misappropriated the good will associated with its trademark and threatened to initiate legal action if Gator did not discontinue this advertising practice. A deceptive or unfair trade or Gator.com Corporation is now known as the Claria Corporation. It will be referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6153BEEB821396868825733F004E412A/$file/0556346.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Navigators asserted that Dependable's insurance policy was subject to the general terms and standard conditions of its
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610241.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were delayed but eventually paid under his pension plan. Is clearly precluded by our decision in Flint v. He is not entitled to interest pursuant to ERISA § 502(a)(3). I. BACKGROUND The facts of Green's case are undisputed. Green was employed as a coal miner with Jim Waters Resources. Green was offered employee benefits through the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Trust (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/891B102EDC5F0E0988256C70005C7B68/$file/0155280.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The plaintiffs are owners and operators of hotels in the city of San Bernardino. The plaintiffs were required to collect this tax from their customers and remit it to the city. Asserting that the tax was unconstitutionally vague on its face. The city ordinance itself is not in the record. Because the plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of their complaint under Fed. The Court recognized that federal courts generally must abstain from suits that would intrude into the administration of state taxation: Petitioners will not recover damages under § 1983 unless a district court first determines that respondents' administration of the County tax system violated petitioners' constitutional rights. We are convinced that such a determination would be fully as intrusive as the equitable actions that are barred by principles of comity. 454 U.S. at 113. Taxpayers are barred
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-3180.htm">97-3180 -- MOUNTAIN SOLUTIONS INC. V. STATE CORP. COMM. OF THE STATE OF KANSAS -- 06/23/1998<BR></A><BR>
That the wireless providers will not suffer irreparable injury if forced to contribute or if fined during the pendency of their suit. That there is no substantial likelihood that the wireless providers will prevail on their claim that the Commission's order requiring them to contribute to the KUSF is preempted by federal law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1553.html">HEIDELBERG HARRIS, INC. V. LOEBACH<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE55A0B16B61BC068825706D00570AFB/$file/0416443.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
So it is perhaps not surprising that litigation in the paper manufacturing industry would require a prodigious quantity of its product. Which itself was a byproduct of various corporate organizational fabrications and deconstructions. Fort James was eventually acquired by the Georgia Pacific Corporation. A large portion of this transaction was accomplished through various means. We shall refer to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/96a1244p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon to interpret and apply the United States Supreme Court's admonition in McFarland v. We hold that the district court's decision to deny him a stay of execution was not consistent with a sound exercise of discretion. Was found stabbed to death in a restroom in the restaurant where she worked. Steven Duffey was charged with the killing. Duffey was formally sentenced. The motion was denied on November 18. A motion for reconsideration was denied on November 22. Believing that the trial court's denials were predicated on its view that it lacked jurisdiction to stay Duffey's execution in the absence of a petition filed under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act (
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8A178DD0E2BE47D288256C3F00516673/$file/0115405.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
OPINION PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the appellee. Because the district court did not have authority to grant such injunctive relief to an unsecured creditor. The Stipulation and Order was signed by the district judge on February 25. 2001 Dateline filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Writ of Attachment in the district court claiming that Basic was transferring its assets out of the Commonwealth and that as a result Dateline would suffer irreparable harm because it would be unable to collect on the note. Contends that the removal of the assets will cause it irreparable harm because it will lose any possible security for the debt. [1] Because Basic had not defaulted on any of its payments. It was in the position of an unsecured creditor whose debtor had not yet defaulted. The Supreme Court held that a district court does not have the authority to issue a preliminary injunction preventing a party from disposing of assets pending adjudication of a claim for money damages.
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5252a.html">USA V. WE ELEC CO INC<BR></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.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-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/995614.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from orders enter ed by the District Court after a trial concerning the right to use the mark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0970p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Philadelphia defendants have not contested the need for substantial and meaningful improvements. They entered into two consent decrees and stipulated revisions thereto in which they agreed to make massive improvements and agreed to have the district court supervise the steps they planned to implement those improvements. It is also not contested that Philadelphia did not meet the deadlines for some of the obligations it undertook in the consent decrees and stipulations. The district court entered the series of orders which are the subject of these appeals.[fn1] Before us in this opinion is the City of Philadelphia's appeal from the order of October 5. These appeals were consolidated for argument with three related appeals. The appeal from the injunction entered by the district court governing the occupancy and conditions of confinement of the City's newly constructed prison facility denominated the Alternative and Special Detention Central Unit (No. 93 2034) was remanded to the district court because the issues raised by the City on appeal had not been raised by it in the district court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/17F9DF6C163AFE378825734D0052D60D/$file/0515206.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that PlaintiffsAppellants were not entitled to judicial review of their claims that the TSA violated their First Amendment rights by disciplining and then discharging Gavello. Gavello was called to a manager's office and asked various questions about his union activities. He refused to respond and was subsequently placed on paid administrative leave while TSA management investigated whether he had engaged in union activities while on duty. Gavello mailed a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1586.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <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="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4433_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eric Robinson was a vice president of sales of Lakeview Technology. Asked point blank about rumors that he was going to Vision. Robinson told Lakeview that he was doing no such thing and would instead pursue real estate interests after his departure. The court denied Lakeview's motion for a preliminary injunction without holding an evidentiary hearing to explore the question whether Robinson is telling the truth. The dispute is not moot: the limit on using trade secrets is of indefinite duration. The limit on solicitation is extended if not complied with during the year provided by the contract. The first of these No. 05 4433 3 is inadequate as a matter of Illinois law. That subject is covered in Hess Newmark Owens Wolf. It is not essential to establish that the worst has come to pass. The second reason is weak given Robinson's history of deceit. Whether an ex employee who concedes telling lies that serve his financial interest is continuing to dissemble. Is a question that a court may not resolve against the employer without a hearing.
</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/opndir/98/09/973608P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Aaron Westendorp is a severely disabled child who requires a full time paraprofessional to function in a school classroom. I. Aaron is a twelve year old boy who lives in Edina. The cost of a paraprofessional is approximately $10. Is the same whether Aaron attends a public school or a private school. Aaron was able to attend the school from 1991 until 1994. The Westendorps were forced to transfer Aaron to a public school in Edina. Or any other location off the nonpublic school premises which is neither physically nor educationally identified with the functions of the nonpublic school
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415878.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The main issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed several claims of Daewoo Motor America. Were violated after a Korean bankruptcy court approved a sale of the assets and liabilities of the Korean parent company of Daewoo America and the defendants then sold in the United States automobiles manufactured by GMDAT. Daewoo America was a claimant represented by counsel in the Korean bankruptcy proceedings but. I. BACKGROUND Daewoo America was incorporated in 1997 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Daewoo Motor Co. The parties agree that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1994/94a0761p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
National Union and Gulf sought to rescind insurance policies which they had issued and under which City Savings and the RTC were seeking coverage. National Union and Gulf were jurisdictionally barred from raising certain affirmative defenses to the RTC's counterclaim. We will affirm the district court's holding that under FIRREA the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over National Union and Gulf's declaratory judgment action. We will reverse the district court's holding that under FIRREA National Union and Gulf are barred from raising affirmative defenses to the counterclaim. Sent a letter to National Union and Gulf providing notice that City Federal might have suffered a loss covered by the insurance policies as a result of dishonest or fraudulent acts of City Federal employees. City Federal was declared insolvent by the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1012.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Richard S. With him on the brief was Steven E. Of counsel was Henri Frederic Hibon. 496 because these patents were licensed to Cambridge under a cross licensing agreement. All of which are assigned to Institut Pasteur. Are directed to structural components of and methods of detecting the presence of two types of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212409.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the entry of a default was an abuse of discretion. Extra contractual damages that are not available under ERISA. The plaintiffs are unable to establish liability under ERISA because Mass Mutual simply is not a fiduciary for any purpose related to the misconduct they allege.1 Indeed. We do not address Mass Mutual's additional arguments. 2 1 that this was never really an ERISA case at all. That it never should have been litigated in federal court. That the plaintiffs' motion to remand should have been granted at the outset. Our statement of the case is. Cotton and Eickhoff were executive officers of BEI Holdings. The other former co defendants in this case were not its legal agents. Rather were simply independent agents authorized to sell Mass Mutual products. We assume that they were in fact Mass Mutual agents. 3 2 on a permanent whole life insurance policy issued on the employee. The cash value of each whole life policy would continue to grow until it would cover the annual premium payments that is.
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTYxNTNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-6153_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants submit that the district court's ruling as to antitrust standing was correct and that dismissal was further warranted for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appellants are licensed physicians who practice or had practiced emergency medicine throughout the United States although they did not complete formal residency training programs in that specialty. Defendants insist that the case was properly dismissed not only for lack of antitrust standing but also for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue in the Western District of New York. We conclude that such a transfer is not in the interests of justice in this case because the plaintiffs lack antitrust standing to pursue their claims. American Board of Emergency Medicine Defendant ABEM is a Michigan not for profit corporation that was established in 6 1976 to certify physicians in emergency medicine. Staff are located in East Lansing. ABEM is a member of the American Board of Medical Specialties (
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1244_052.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case was brought by frustrated depositors of Superior Bank FSB (
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410274.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: At issue in this case is whether prior rulings rendered by a New York State Supreme Court in divorce proceedings between Appellant Michael Urfirer and his wife. Urfirer's claims allege that Robert and Jeffrey Cornfeld fraudulently induced him to sign a provision of his divorce settlement agreement with Leslie Cornfeld waiving any claims he might have to any of his wife's family's property and other holdings. Because we find that the prior rulings of the New York divorce court have only interpreted the scope of the waiver without ever reaching the question of whether Robert and Jeffrey Cornfeld fraudulently obtained the waiver and because Urfirer's claims against the Cornfelds seek damages from nonparties to the divorce proceedings. They are claims that the divorce court did not and could not have previously adjudicated. Who is the daughter of Appellee Robert Cornfeld and the sister of Appellee Jeffrey Cornfeld. Stated: The Husband hereby waives any claim he has or may have in the future arising out of the Wife's family's real estate or other holdings including.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2038.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court concluded that the principles of direct and derivative liability under CERCLA articulated in <U>Bestfoods</U> would not have altered that original judgment. <U>United States</U> v. <U>Kayser Roth Corp.</U>. Stamina Mills was a wholly owned subsidiary of Kayser Roth.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1423.html">NATIONAL CENTER V. U.S.A.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E1924E76EF2F80478825713A000137CE/$file/0356601.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Richard Sherman (Sherman) was the attorney for several defendants in an enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and in other actions in which those defendants were parties. Maintaining that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/95-3338.wpd.html">PHELPS V. HAMILTON<BR></A><BR>
Case number 95 3338 is shown as an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The correct lower court is the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. We address the threshold question of whether we have appellate jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' appeal. We hold that we have jurisdiction over this appeal and affirm the judgment of the district court. BACKGROUND The forty plaintiffs in this case are members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka. Kansas who are involved in anti homosexual protests and picketing in Shawnee County. Hockenbarger seek to have the court declare that the nine criminal prosecutions and defendant Hamilton's prosecutorial policies are unconstitutional because they are based on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7899E39E8C51C2B088256CB10004B844/$file/0255378.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The central issue is whether the discovery rule applies to toll the statute of limitations in a contract claim. Where fraudulent misrepresentations are asserted in conjunction with the contract claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to hear Hashim's challenge to the district court's preliminary injunction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/97-7064a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief was Athan T. Dawson and Smith were prisoners of the District of Columbia in the Lorton Correctional Complex in Virginia. The District's appeal is mainly on the ground that the court misapplied the standards articulat ed in Helling v. None of the three plaintiffs is still jailed at Lorton. Scott completed his sentence and was released more than a year ago. Dawson and Smith are now serving time at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. They were trans ferred to Ohio in September 1997 pursuant to s 11201(c) of the National Capital Revitalization and Self Government Im provement Act of 1997. A prisoner's transfer or release from a prison moots any claim he might have for equitable relief arising out of the conditions of his confinement in that prison.1 It does 1 See Cameron v. 1363 (11th Cir. 1984). not matter that Smith and Dawson are still being held under the authority of the District of Columbia. Neither he nor the other two plaintiffs are before us asking for damages.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2244.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellant. Carens & DeGiacomo were on brief for appellee. Circuit Judge. is whether the bankruptcy court properly enjoined a state law based
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C5F3B1F60F563108825730C004C4974/$file/0735000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that Lands Council was unlikely to prevail on its claims and that the balance of hardships favored the Forest Service. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Mission Brush Area The Project assessment area is in the Bonners Ferry Ranger District in the northern portion of the IPNF. The area is home to abundant plant and animal species. Much of the historic forest conditions have been replaced by dense.
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/012538P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Agents and employees and * its members who are employed by * plaintiffs Allied Systems Ltd. and * Transport Support. Local 604 is the recognized exclusive representative for Allied TSI's employees at the Wentzville. Finding the picketing was a disguise for grievances subject to arbitration under the parties' agreement and was effectively a work stoppage. Allied is a motor carrier service company that delivers new and used automobiles by truck around the United States and Canada. Allied and TSI are wholly owned by Allied Automotive Group. Local 604 is affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). Were the Secretary Treasurer and President of Local 604. Local 604 and Allied TSI are signatories to the National Master Automobile Transporters Agreement (NMATA) which contains a mandatory arbitration clause and requires arbitration of labor disputes before unions engage in work stoppages or strikes. Thyer alleged the reason for calling the strike was 3 that Allied's terminal manager. Was discharged for threatening to kill one of Allied TSI's administrative employees.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962450.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 96 2450 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The Corps sent a letter to Smith stating that the fill had caused less than a one acre impact on the wetlands and was therefore authorized under a general nationwide permit. There was evidence of recent fill activity. The Corps notified Smith that he was in violation of the Act. The government's chief witness was Veal. Were good for flood retention. Veal testified that removal of the fill material was necessary to restore the normal water flow and fluctuations at the property. Only after the fill was removed. He stated that the property in its present state was different than the forested wetlands system that previously existed. He concurred that the fill was preventing the water purification process and that the fill would have to be removed in order to restore the property. Was achievable as a practical matter. Civil Penalty Once liability for a violation of the Act is established. The imposition of a civil penalty is mandatory.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2227.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellees.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1737.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before us is a motion to restore a preliminary injunction pending appeal. Was a non exclusive distributor in the northeast region for Philips Semiconductors. Claiming inter alia that the disclosure of its customer list (1) breached a confidentiality obligation contained in the distributorship agreement and (2) was a misappropriation of trade secrets. Gerber's further request to bar defendants from soliciting the listed customers was denied. The case was removed to federal court. Arguing that it was defective on both substantive and procedural grounds. Gerber replied that the district court was constrained to adhere to the single justice's ruling. If any modification were to be undertaken. Gerber acknowledges that a district court is authorized under 28 U.S.C. 1450 to modify or dissolve a state court injunction following removal. Such an injunction becomes
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1502.html">BRISTOL-MYERS V. ROYCE<BR></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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1034.html">FILMTEC V. HYDRANAUTICS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055461po.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is denied. The focus of those opinions particularly Mertens and Great West is that any make whole monetary relief that is not directly traceable to some wrongly held property is properly characterized as legal. Is thus unavailable in a 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) action. Eichorn's request for an adjustment of pension records that would create a payment obligation is clearly unavailable. A
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0258p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is a civil action brought by the estate of Melva Dee Parrott (represented by Donald Blaty) against Eagle Village. The second appeal in this case is brought by Blaty. I. Melva Dee Parrott was born on May 4. Parrott and her three siblings were removed from their parents' home and placed in the custody of Eagle Village. The civil action underlying these appeals was filed by Donald Blaty. Frontier Insurance was placed on rehabilitation1 by the New York Supreme Court. The New York court ordered that parties to all actions in which Frontier is obligated to defend a party 1
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1067p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in an action brought by the Secretary of Labor (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/04-10004-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a district court may authorize the rejection of an executory 2 contract for the purchase of electricity as part of a bankruptcy reorganization. The district court held that a FERC proceeding was the proper forum for Mirant to seek relief from any of its power contracts. We find that the district court's jurisdictional ruling is erroneous. I Mirant is one of the largest regulated public utilities in the United States. PEPCO is also a regulated public entity responsible for servicing the power needs of residential and commercial consumers in the District of Columbia and Maryland. The Schedule 2.4 payments relating to these unassigned PPAs are referred to by the parties. The parties agree that the Back to Back Agreement's rate for electricity is higher than the market rate. The PPAs are long term fixed rate contracts to purchase electricity from outside suppliers that PEPCO used to supplement its energy needs before deregulation. 4 1 First. To require or coerce [Mirant] to abide by the terms of any Wholesale Contract
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1158.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When it vacated a restrictive covenant attached to their property that was designed to preserve the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. Was unconstitutional because it does not require the Commission to follow the procedures set forth in the state's eminent domain statute for determining public use. William and Judy Daniels (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1335.html">JIM ARNOLD CORP. V. HYDROTECH SYSTEMS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CA5816AB8007027C88256A53005D2396/$file/9956917.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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 $4. That provision requires local voter approval of any low rent housing projects that are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/04-10094-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a district court may authorize the rejection of an executory 2 contract for the purchase of electricity as part of a bankruptcy reorganization. The district court held that a FERC proceeding was the proper forum for Mirant to seek relief from any of its power contracts. We find that the district court's jurisdictional ruling is erroneous. I Mirant is one of the largest regulated public utilities in the United States. PEPCO is also a regulated public entity responsible for servicing the power needs of residential and commercial consumers in the District of Columbia and Maryland. The Schedule 2.4 payments relating to these unassigned PPAs are referred to by the parties. The parties agree that the Back to Back Agreement's rate for electricity is higher than the market rate. The PPAs are long term fixed rate contracts to purchase electricity from outside suppliers that PEPCO used to supplement its energy needs before deregulation. 4 1 First. To require or coerce [Mirant] to abide by the terms of any Wholesale Contract
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0288p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That Powers is not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DD2D2E7C46A9545C88256E5A00707B54/$file/9956917.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/04-10001-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a district court may authorize the rejection of an executory 2 contract for the purchase of electricity as part of a bankruptcy reorganization. The district court held that a FERC proceeding was the proper forum for Mirant to seek relief from any of its power contracts. We find that the district court's jurisdictional ruling is erroneous. I Mirant is one of the largest regulated public utilities in the United States. PEPCO is also a regulated public entity responsible for servicing the power needs of residential and commercial consumers in the District of Columbia and Maryland. The Schedule 2.4 payments relating to these unassigned PPAs are referred to by the parties. The parties agree that the Back to Back Agreement's rate for electricity is higher than the market rate. The PPAs are long term fixed rate contracts to purchase electricity from outside suppliers that PEPCO used to supplement its energy needs before deregulation. 4 1 First. To require or coerce [Mirant] to abide by the terms of any Wholesale Contract
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5061a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1508.html">B.BRAUN MED. INC. V. ABBOT LAB & NP MED<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3085.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Any gaming on Indian land must be approved by the National Indian Gaming (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Which approval is subject to judicial review. After the Joint Stipulation was made. It was in response to our decision in the Kansas case that the DOI issued its Opinion Letter. Because our jurisdiction is limited to review of final agency action and because the federal government has not waived its sovereign immunity to judicial enforcement of the Joint Stipulation. A fuller treatment of this history is available in the published opinions from the earlier cases. The district court noted that the Tribe had left the Reserve by the 1870s and that Congress expressly abrogated any claim the Tribe might have to the Reserve no later than 1924. The present owners of the Reserve were admitted to the Tribe as members. On appeal to the district court the case was remanded to the NIGC because the commission
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1829E12C574B8E4888256BCD007EEF78/$file/0155154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Matthew Clark Bures was on the brief. The claims also have played a central role in Nutrition Now's marketing campaign. Rogovin vigorously complained to Rifkin that Nutrition Now's claims regarding PB8 were false and misleading. Jarrow alleged that Nutrition Now's claims were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/036070P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND National Warranty Risk Retention Group is incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands. The company was created under the provisions of the Liability Risk Retention Act. The principal activity of National Warranty consists of operation as a risk retention group that primarily insured group members who were obligated to contract The Honorable Timothy J. The statute authorizes the creation of companies which are to be incorporated in and regulated by foreign jurisdictions. Which are authorized to sell product liability insurance in the United States. National Warranty is an insurance company. The individual states which regulate domestic insurance companies that are licensed to do business in each state. Have limited authority over the business acts of entities such as National Warranty. 2 2 1 holders that had purchased Vehicle Service Contracts from those group members. The Vehicle Service Contracts that were issued by the various group members are more commonly known as Extended Warranty Agreements.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2233.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellant. Richardson and Gelinas were on brief for appellee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/99-7058a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Robert R. With him on the brief were Kelly Bagby and Joseph B. With her on the brief was Bill Lann Lee. We agree with appellant that the fine was a criminal sanction that could not be imposed without a criminal trial. Named as defendants were the Mayor and four other District officials (collectively. It requires the District to place specified numbers of Forest Haven residents in community institutions and to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1016.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTI3NDctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-2747-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Numerous other plaintiffs have brought similar challenges to state statutes passed in conjunction with the multi state settlement. The precise question with which we are currently presented is a narrow one. The payments of the OPMs of which each settling state is entitled to a fixed percentage (that is. An
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="440"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1249.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were George M. With him on the brief were Stacey L. Of counsel was Mark A. Because we conclude that the district court erred in conducting a bench trial on the inventorship claim prior to a jury trial on the state law claims when there were common underlying factual issues. BACKGROUND Shum is an optical engineer who worked for many years in the field of optoelectric packaging technology. 1 Shum met Jean Marc Verdiell. Who is also an engineer experienced in the field of optoelectronics. Although Verdiell was still employed with SDL. Shum was named the sole inventor. During the Verdiell was named following months. Radiance was dissolved pursuant to a Plan of Liquidation. That patent Optoelectronic packages are devices that are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="440"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1234p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that a motion to dismiss a federal statutory interpleader action during the pendency of a parallel state court proceeding is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. The district court was of the belief that all federal claims had been eliminated and terminated the case. The court should have exercised its discretion to decide in which forum. We will. We begin by reviewing those aspects of its history that are relevant to the issues before us. NYLife is a New York corporation. TAG is organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in New Jersey. Gerasolo is a citizen of New York. Bleach is a citizen of New Jersey. NYLife asserted that it was subject to conflicting demands from the defendants for monies it was holding in Mainstay Mutual Fund accounts opened for TAG employees in connection with TAG's executive compensation plan.[fn4] Claiming no interest in the money. Was deposited in the court's Registry. That TAG's claims were barred by certain settlement agreements.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="440"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/39A87F1F3C838FD488256C2B004FCFB5/$file/0135184.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Although the timber sale is now complete. We conclude that Neighbors' challenge to the sale is not moot because effective relief may still be granted. The Forest Service's decisions regarding Payette are governed by NFMA. (b).1 The Forest Service is then required to ensure that the forest is managed in compliance with the Forest Plan. Must be analyzed by the Forest Service and the analysis must show that each project is consistent with the plan. A viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained. A miniAll citations to the Code of Federal Regulations are to the 1999 version. It is characterized by several parameters set forth in the Forest Plan. These species are sometimes referred to as old growth species. A management indicator species
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="440"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944908.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the relief The district appellants request specific performance is not available under 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j) of the Financial Institutions Reform and Recovery Enforcement Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="440"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1224p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that a motion to dismiss a federal statutory interpleader action during the pendency of a parallel state court proceeding is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. The district court was of the belief that all federal claims had been eliminated and terminated the case. The court should have exercised its discretion to decide in which forum. We will. We begin by reviewing those aspects of its history that are relevant to the issues before us. NYLife is a New York corporation. TAG is organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in New Jersey. Gerasolo is a citizen of New York. Bleach is a citizen of New Jersey. NYLife asserted that it was subject to conflicting demands from the defendants for monies it was holding in Mainstay Mutual Fund accounts opened for TAG employees in connection with TAG's executive compensation plan.[fn4] Claiming no interest in the money. Was deposited in the court's Registry. That TAG's claims were barred by certain settlement agreements.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="440"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0977n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cohn is an attorney who represents debtors * The Honorable Kathleen O'Malley. Who are three of the four bankruptcy judges on the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Cohn seeks both a declaratory judgment that Appellees are required to utilize the specific method of awarding attorney's fees set forth by this Court in In re Boddy. The dismissal was based on findings that Cohn lacked standing to assert his claims. The claims were not ripe for adjudication. Cohn was not entitled to mandamus relief. Which are the Mandamus and Venue Act and the All Writs Act. The distinction between a mandatory injunction and mandamus relief is of little.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="440"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200603/05-5031a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Kenneth L. I. Background Randy Webman and Larry Rozen were imprisoned for fraud and other offenses at the Federal Correctional Complex in Coleman. Rozen was released in 2001. Webman and Rozen
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="440"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/591DE0BDB1755ABE88256ED200748A3D/$file/0235700.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Presiding *Lawrence Wasden is substituted for his predecessor. We conclude that the statute's definition of
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1637.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. Grumman's most intriguing argument presented below as both a defense and a counterclaim is that DG illegally maintained its monopoly in the market for service of DG computers by unilaterally refusing to license ADEX to Grumman and other competitors. The antitrust claims are intriguing because they present a curious conflict. Must tolerate short term harm to the competitive process when such harm is caused by the otherwise lawful exercise of an economically potent
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1865.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dailey were on brief for appellants. Dana & Gould were on brief for appellees. This appeal requires us to decide for a second time1 whether plaintiffs appellants (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/986502.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BreathAsure stipulated that scientific evidence established that its
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-3019.htm">99-3019 -- SAC AND FOX NATION OF MISSOURI V. PIERCE -- 05/30/2000<BR></A><BR>
Is responsible for . Us is whether the State of Kansas may impose its . Within the State. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> The facts underlying this case are not in dispute. The Tribes are the beneficial owners of trust lands within the State of Kansas. The stations are located along or near Kansas state . 79 3408(d)(1) (1999 Supp.)] exempts any fuel transactions where the fuel is exported
</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/347395952971D5AE88256E5A00707B6E/$file/9956917.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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 $4. That provision requires local voter approval of any low rent housing projects that are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCFDACD987CCC03C88256A5E0057C745/$file/9956917.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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 $4. That provision requires local voter approval of any low rent housing projects that are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5B2FF7E1C9E948F788256BA600805C7E/$file/0116274.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Therefore the district court's consideration of the traditional preliminary injunction factors was error. BACKGROUND Nicholas is an autistic child eligible for educational assistance under IDEA. Its main purpose is to provide disabled children with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2050.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. He alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race. The following facts are treated as undisputed for purposes of the motion for summary judgment. DeNovellis is a white male of Italian descent. He was sixty six years old at the time he filed this action in 1994. Which was part of HHS. DeNovellis's position was eliminated in an agency reorganization that occurred in the spring of 1991. Was the Regional Administrator (RA) of HDS. Williams was a black male of the age of fifty five when this action was filed. There were racial tensions in the office. There were also ethnic and race related comments around the office that Williams condoned. Why don't you have your people (Mafia) in the North End take care of them.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2108.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 9. Were on brief for appellant. David Jordan and Jordan & Gfroerer were on brief for appellees. Did not (prior to its amendment in 1986) apply to so called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0295p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appeal was consolidated with a National Labor Relations Board (
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/97-2188a.htm">97-2188A -- ELEPHANT BUTTE IRRIGATION DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO V. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR -- 11/06/1998<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B7A8C6F427B92C3988256C15007CF772/$file/0156151.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alan and Elizabeth have been the only persons with legal or equitable title to the property. Neither was found to have any ownership interest in the property. The matter was set for trial on October 26. The proceedings were stayed when Deborah filed her Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition twenty four minutes before trial was to begin. When the Canter Trust inquired why the stay was reinstated. The district court's only explanation was. We must determine whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. We have previously held that
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/97-2188.htm">97-2188 -- ELEPHANT BUTTE IRRIGATION DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO V. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR -- 11/06/1998<BR></A><BR>
The district court also ruled Plaintiffs are entitled to their lawful share of net profits. 2043 (1997) (stating the question before the Court
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1126p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 is the amount in controversy. Settled that in diversity suits for injunctions the cost of compliance is not the definitive measure of the amount in controversy. Because the value to Columbia of protecting the rights of way by this action is alleged to be in excess of the jurisdictional minimum and the actual value to Columbia is not legally certain to be less than the jurisdictional threshold. We will affirm the district court's judgment in favor of Columbia. We hold that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and that Columbia's rights of way are indeed fifty feet wide. Denied that Columbia's right of way was fifty feet in width. The district court recognized that if the pipeline were to leak. The district court also concluded that Columbia was presently violating the applicable federal regulations and thus could not continue to operate the pipeline under these conditions indefinitely. Tarbuck was on notice of Columbia's claim to fifty feet before he acquired the property. The Columbia form Tarbuck signed explicitly stated that the rights of way were fifty feet in width.
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014340.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse Honorable Harlington Wood. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.1 All three Plaintiffs had recently been denied admission to UGA. Therefore were. Johnson was offered admission to UGA after filing this lawsuit. They alleged that UGA's use of gender violated Equal Protection and Title IX.2 Named as Defendants were the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/023897p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Such that the EAA's limited open forum mandates were not triggered. 1 we conclude that her request for injunctive and declaratory relief is moot. The opening briefs were filed and oral argument took place while she was still a student. During which time she was referred to as such. We will do the same. 4 justify PAHS's preventing the Bible club from meeting during the activity period. Punxsutawney Area High School (PAHS) is a Punxsutawney Area School District public secondary school that receives federal financial assistance. Students have free reign in a closed universe. Each club must have a faculty sponsor who monitors but is not required to participate actively in club meetings. Noncurriculum related groups that meet during the activity period are the ski club. Appellant Melissa Donovan is a PAHS senior who leads a Bible club known as FISH. Former PAHS Principal Allen Towns and current PAHS Principal David 5 London have stipulated that FISH may not meet during the activity period due to the club's religious ties.
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200311580.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is declared to be illegal. Or association shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief. Against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws . . . when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by courts of equity. Upon the execution of proper bond against damages for an injunction improvidently granted and a showing that the danger of irreparable loss or damage is immediate. There are no means available f or servic e upon OPE C und er the Fe deral Ru les of Civ il Proced ure. I. BACKGROUND Prewitt is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Alabama with its principal place of business in Birmingham. OPEC is an intergovernmental organization originally established in 1960 via resolutions promulgated at the Conference of the Representatives of the Gove rnmen ts of Iran . The principal aim of OPEC is
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-14340.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF GEORGIA (8/27/2001, NO. 00-14340)<BR></A><BR>
The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse student body. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.<A HREF=
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-14340.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF GEORGIA (8/27/2001, NO. 00-14340)<BR></A><BR>
The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse student body. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D9B522DE32A804C88256B3B0000C4AB/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2001 is amended as follows: 1) The opinion's list of counsel for the defendantsappellees. The first three sentences of the first full paragraph should be replaced by the following: 235
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-1292.htm">00-1292 -- HARRIS V. OWENS -- 09/10/2001<BR></A><BR>
The historic 1998 agreement between most of the states and the major tobacco companies was a milestone in the ongoing attempt to address this issue. It is perhaps not surprising that there has been considerable controversy about the status of the settlement funds. <p> In this case. After the state has reimbursed itself for the benefits it has paid out it must then turn over the excess funds attributed to the Medicaid settlement to the individuals whose claims were settled. <p> Contrary to a number of district courts that have considered similar cases. We hold that this suit is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint in this case. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A419A63973E4E91788256DD50079411E/$file/0257011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The King is dead. I A Plaintiffs are a group of companies and individuals holding copyrights in various materials relating to Elvis Presley. Is the registered 15850 ELVIS PRESLEY ENTER'S v. Plaintiffs Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller are songwriters who own copyrights in many of Elvis' most famous songs. Plaintiff Alfred Wertheimer is a professional photographer who owns numerous copyrighted photographs of Elvis. Many Plaintiffs are in the business of licensing their copyrights. Plaintiffs allege that thousands of copies were sent to retail outlets and other distributors. In depth look at the life and career of a man whose popularity is unrivaled in the history of show business and who continues to attract millions of new fans each year. Sixteen hour series is brimming with classic film clips. PASSPORT VIDEO 15851 Every Film and Television Appearance is represented in this series as well as Rare Footage Of Many of Elvis' Tours & Concerts (emphasis in original). The biography itself is indeed exhaustive.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEyNDAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1240-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that OPA is entitled to such access and information pursuant to the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act. The Act was commonly referred to by the acronym
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B09FA7717F18D78588256AF50001E5AF/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5050a.html">ANDRX PHARMACEUTICALS V. BIOVAIL CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL<BR></A><BR>
Singer were on brief. <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/00-5050a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Singer were on brief. Todaro were on brief. Unless an approval of an application filed pursuant to (b) or (j) of this section is effective with respect to such drug.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/89905E37452D8DDD88256E5A00707D2E/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/182B1554DB1C5CA088256E310079A938/$file/0257011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2003 is amended as follows: At Slip Opinion. Add the following after
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0011p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are Detroit area real estate developers who brought suit against Crosswinds Communities and its principal shareholder. Which was The Honorable James L. Finding that they had been prejudiced by unnecessary delay between the time the plaintiffs had learned that construction was planned (or. The time that construction was undertaken) and the time that the complaint was filed. Even though the action was filed within the three year statute of limitations provided by the Copyright Act in 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). The dispositive question is whether the equitable doctrine of laches can be held to trump the statutorily prescribed period for filing suit under § 507(b). To the extent that the plaintiffs in this case are seeking only monetary damages and injunctive relief. To the extent that the relief sought is destruction of the condominium complex that allegedly infringes the plaintiffs' copyright. The facts before us suggest that this is indeed the extraordinary case in which the defense of laches is properly interposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-2790_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They do business outside the United States but are covered by the order. Such as the Royal Bank of Canada are dissatisfied with the freeze and asked the district court for relief. Liquidity is valuable to customers in the derivatives business. The court set a briefing schedule that will last until August 23 and promised a ruling by mail. An immediate appeal is proper under these decisions. There is no doubt here that the district court has issued an injunction. Nothing more is required under §1292(a)(1). For 20 days is No. 07 2790 3 the limit on ex parte relief set by Fed. That Rule 65(b) is inapplicable because this injunction is authorized by §6c of the Commodity Exchange Act. There is no longer any emergency in this case. Section 13a1(a) does not say that hearings are unnecessary. Let alone that they are forbidden. It is silent on the question. 1220 (7th Cir. 1979) but that effect on the substantive rules of decision does not imply that norms for the conduct of litigation have been discarded. The absence of a statutory time limit for ex parte relief no more implies that such relief may last forever than a statute's failure to mention an answer or testimony at a hearing implies that defendants are forbidden to answer the complaint or offer evidence when a hearing finally is held.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-2790_007.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They do business outside the United This opinion is being issued in typescript. A printed copy will follow. No. 07 2790 Page 2 States but are covered by the order. Such as the Royal Bank of Canada are dissatisfied with the freeze and asked the district court for relief. Liquidity is valuable to customers in the derivatives business. The court set a briefing schedule that will last until August 23 and promised a ruling by mail. An immediate appeal is proper under these decisions. There is no doubt here that the district court has issued an injunction. Nothing more is required under §1292(a)(1). For 20 days is the limit on ex parte relief set by Fed. That Rule 65(b) is inapplicable because this injunction is authorized by §6c of the Commodity Exchange Act. There is no longer any emer No. 07 2790 Page 3 gency in this case. Section 13a1(a) does not say that hearings are unnecessary. Let alone that they are forbidden. It is silent on the question. 1220 (7th Cir. 1979) but that effect on the substantive rules of decision does not imply that norms for the conduct of litigation have been discarded.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2586.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Redlener</SPAN> were on brief. Kazarian</SPAN> were on brief. They now claim that the Membership Interests placed in escrow are part of the bankruptcy estate and not the property of the appellee. Both the bankruptcy court and the district court ruled that the escrowed assets were not part of the bankruptcy estate and were properly distributed from escrow to the appellee. While there is a long and complicated history between the parties. NTA) are holding companies. The Membership Interests were NTA's primary assets and entitled NTA to exercise total control over Concourse. (2) Holding Company would have the option to purchase NTA's Membership Interests in Concourse. Concourse commenced a civil action in Illinois state court seeking a determination that it was not in default under the terms of its loan agreement with Holding Company. The Standstill Agreement and the Escrow Agreement.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-6420.htm">01-6420 -- MEHDIPOUR V. JONES -- 03/13/2003<BR></A><BR>
The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> <center><strong>Procedural Background</strong></center> <p> These five appeals arise out of three district court actions that are the latest in a series of suits Mr. He alleged that the judges had become an arm of the State of Oklahoma and were engaging in an unconstitutional pattern and practice of ruling against him in his federal suits against officers of the State. Mehdipour was incarcerated. Mehdipour was unable to prepare pleadings in his pending lawsuits without his legal materials. The court ruled that all the judicial defendants were entitled to absolute immunity and that the United States was entitled to sovereign immunity and. This notice was transmitted to this court. Where it was docketed as three appeals. <p> The district court later filed an order carrying the caption of all three cases that denied Mr. We have pending before us a total of five appeals arising from three district court actions. The record does not reflect that any circuit judge was served. <p> The circumstances presented here are similar to those in <em>Switzer v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2025p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fotta appeals the dismissal of the 2 ERISA count and the Trustees cross appeal to have the state claims dismissed with prejudice. Fotta was covered by a United Mine Workers administered pension plan that provided. Arguing that the first count failed to state a claim under ERISA and that the remaining state law counts were preempted by S 514(a) of ERISA. Stating that there was no longer federal jurisdiction over the case. The district courts that have addressed the question are divided: two have held such claims for interest non cognizable under ERISA. Is the means by which an ERISA plan beneficiary is authorized to sue to recover benefits under the plan. A. We disagree with the Trustees' contention that the lack of an express provision for interest in ERISA is necessarily fatal to Fotta's claim. This is. The development of federal common law under ERISA is appropriate only when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2024p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge We are asked on this appeal to determine whether the District Court erred in releasing the funds of certain investors from a freeze order entered in the context of receivership proceedings instituted by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Appellants are several Pennsylvania school districts who invested funds with defendants. We will affirm the procedural orders and the orders lifting the freeze. The SEC discovered that Devon was carrying assets on its books at materially inflated values and had incurred massive trading losses totaling at least $50 million of the $345 million entrusted to it by its investment clients. The investigation also determined that Devon and Black 1 were concealing the losses from their clients. Most of whom were school districts and governmental entities. Were continuing to accept funds from new investment clients without disclosing information regarding these losses. The SEC believed that Devon was seeking new clients so as to use their funds to fulfill obligations to existing clients under their investment advisory agreements.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1918.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Feder was on brief for appellant. Kunstadt was on brief for appellee. Not involved in the sale was CPL or its mark. Patent Office in July 1964.1 1 ALC was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971399.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 5 the cite to the law review article is corrected to begin
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="428"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/986095P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Nebraska. 1 loans were discharged in her Chapter 7 case under the undue hardship provision of § 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code. A determination of undue hardship is a factual determination. Is reversible only if we find clear error.2 Because we conclude that the bankruptcy court correctly interpreted § 523(a)(8) as applying to each student loan individually and not to an aggregate obligation of cumulative student loan debt. Because the bankruptcy court's determination that the debtor would experience undue hardship if two of her student loans were excepted from discharge is not clearly erroneous. The loans were each guaranteed by NSLP. Which is still the holder of the three loans. The loans are not consolidated. 359 (6th Cir. 1994) (determination that excepting student loans from discharge will impose undue hardship is a question of law subject to de novo review. Factual findings underlying the determination are reviewed for clear error). While defining undue hardship is a question of law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D679CACF24947F0A88257098007A6180/$file/0215907.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292(a)(2) and affirm. The Adcock family water system business was organized into four corporations. Some of which are named as defendants: Alco Water Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></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-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/67F77ED13FE54E3A88256CE700821978/$file/0156319.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dyer and Jeanie owned a house together when they were married (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200004/98-5235a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were David M. The district court should have abstained under principles of international comity. He did not violate the securities laws of the United States because the interests Swiss Trade sold were not securities. Neither summary judgment nor the relief granted the SEC are warranted. Some of Blackwell's arguments are not properly before this court. The others are without merit. The individual investor was not a party to the Endeavor Trust agreement and was not ordinarily ap prised of the terms of the trust arrangement prior to invest ing. Was directed at low income individuals to whom Blackwell privately referred as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5235a.html">SEC V. BANNER FUND INTERNATIONAL, ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the </P> <P>brief were David M. The district court should have abstained </P> <P>under principles of international comity. He did not violate </P> <P>the securities laws of the United States because the interests </P> <P>Swiss Trade sold were not securities. Neither summary </P> <P>judgment nor the relief granted the SEC are warranted. </P> <P>Some of Blackwell's arguments are not properly before this </P> <P>court. The others are without merit. The individual investor was not a party to </P> <P>the Endeavor Trust agreement and was not ordinarily ap </P> <P>prised of the terms of the trust arrangement prior to invest </P> <P>ing. Was directed at low income </P> <P>individuals to whom Blackwell privately referred as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/991346P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. 1 This is a federal admiralty case involving an underlying Jones Act personal injury action brought in Illinois state court by James F. Lewis & Clark argues that the district court abused its discretion in dissolving its restraining order and staying the federal admiralty action because (1) the federal district court has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate Lewis & Clark's right to exoneration from or limitation of liability and (2) Claimant's Illinois state court action was properly enjoined under the circumstances of the present case. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Jurisdiction in the court of appeals is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background Lewis & Clark is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Granite City. Lewis & Clark was the owner or. Claimant was purportedly injured while working for Lewis & Clark as a deckhand aboard the M/V KAREN MICHELLE.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063186np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal presents us with yet another installment in the ongoing saga that is this class action lawsuit. We will affirm. More than 100 actions were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/584907C164019DD288256B750003E183/$file/0056450.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 3753 infringement of the trademark. The answer was filed approximately two weeks late. The magistrate judge ordered Salmonsen to serve the answer on CDS and to call CDS to discuss 2 Tani was promoting his dental practice as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/00-15985.or1.html">TOUCHSTON V. MCDERMOTT (11/17/2000, NO. 00-15985)<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction was denied. This request was denied. The documents in this case were lodged in this Court as they were filed in the district court. The Plaintiffs have filed an emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal. Has decided that a prompt decision on the Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal was required in these circumstances. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/00-15985.or1.html">TOUCHSTON V. MCDERMOTT (11/17/2000, NO. 00-15985)<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction was denied. This request was denied. The documents in this case were lodged in this Court as they were filed in the district court. The Plaintiffs have filed an emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal. Has decided that a prompt decision on the Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal was required in these circumstances. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1951.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Remmel & Zimmerman were on brief for plaintiffs. Were on brief for defendant. Agency or association.1 Violations of the Act are declared to contravene the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. Is intended to tangibly benefit or is represented to be for the tangible benefit of any law enforcement officer. Chamberlain all of whom are officers of law enforcement associations. Seeking to enjoin the Act and to have it declared unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. While declaring that the provision for injunctive enforcement was an unconstitutional prior restraint. As the Act was originally enacted in 1977. Its sole exception was for solicitations by or on behalf of law enforcement officers campaigning for election to public office an exception still in existence. The Act was amended to allow game wardens to sell historical publications describing state parks.3 Me. Is intended to benefit or is represented to be for the benefit of any law enforcement officer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/410347FABA0293F388257251006DF1D1/$file/0510067.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. 19790 UNITED STATES v. The government was also required to give up all notes made by reviewing agents. 1 UNITED STATES v. The subpoenas were returnable on February 5. Consists of two professional baseball leagues the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs and the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs. 4 The names of the players are under seal and are not disclosed in this opinion. 5 CDT is a third party administrator of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982313.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In areas where local television network affiliates were able to provide service. Because this license is in derogation of the networks' copyrights. The license extends only to transmissions to private households that are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="423"></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-4.gif" ALT="423"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0354p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Elias Rodriguez was injured in an automobile accident. Rodriguez was entitled to medical benefits under the Tennessee Laborers Health and Welfare Fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="423"></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-4.gif" ALT="423"></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-4.gif" ALT="423"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986598.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="423"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1521p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their applications were ultimately denied on the basis of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="423"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0439p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is unaffiliated with Audi. D'Amato alleges that when he asked if displaying the logos was permissible. Skal was not affiliated with Audi in any way.1 Id. at 650. These items were posted for sale in 2003. Audi already HAS a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="423"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1079p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1)(West Supp. 1994). Were denied. There was insufficient evidence to show that defendants had complied with the detailed procedures necessary under the EPA’s ocean dumping regulations to demonstrate that dioxin was present in the materials to be dumped only as a trace contaminant with no significant undesirable effects. It concluded that the record did not support the Corps’ finding that the permit met the requirements of the EPA’s ocean dumping regulations and that appellants therefore were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim. Since the dredging under the permit would have no significant adverse environmental effects. The court stated that it was highly likely that defendants would be able to establish that dioxin was present only in trace quantities or. The court also ordered the Port Authority either to establish that the permit was lawfully issued under the EPA’s regulations or to pursue a waiver.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0096p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At the time the lawsuit was filed. The court held that Plaintiffs had not alleged that Defendants adopted or adhered to the 25 percent rule because of rather than in spite of its disparate impact on females and that sheer disparate impact is insufficient to demonstrate an equal protection violation. While Plaintiffs' first appeal was pending in this Court. The Kentucky General Assembly amended the statute regulating discriminatory effect is a requirement of Title IX. Because Defendants are charged with knowledge of the law. It follows that remand is appropriate to determine whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' Title IX rights. I would reverse the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims of monetary relief and remand for a determination of whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' Title IX rights in accordance with Davis. I would also reserve judgment as to whether Plaintiffs were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062337p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Facts and Procedural History Howard Graden was a Conexant employee until September 2002 and a participant in the Conexant Retirement Saving Plan until October 2004. Conexant's is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3146B9B8189E95F588256BA4007707DE/$file/0056450.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: footnote 9 on slip opinion page 3757 is deleted. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. 6102 COMMUNITY DENTAL SERVICES v. Both parties orally agreed to an extension of time for the filing of an answer to We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Tani was promoting his dental practice as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116265.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Several other defendants who were originally parties to the suit were dismissed pursuant to settlement agreements. 2 1 * pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Inc. have and recover of Defendants Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative. It is further ORDERED. Inc. and that said claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for an award of attorneys' fees is hereby DENIED. The interpretation of Rule 68 is a legal question that we decide de novo. DISCUSSION The question presented in this appeal is simply whether. If within 10 days after the service of the offer the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is |
