Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

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

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

Did you mean trade and regulation or FTC?

Your query (trade and regulation) or ftc returned 2362 results.

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

	OPINION/ORDER Have petitioned this court. The PFDA contends that the FTC's decision to implement a ban on casket handling fees was arbitrary and capricious and that the factual findings underlying that decision were unsupported by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record taken as a whole. We will affirm the amended Funeral Rule. The FTC's decision to issue the Funeral Rule was appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Was affirmed in Harry & Bryant Co. v. The FTC adopted the amendment to the Funeral Rule which is at issue here. Inc. is a member. Sought and was granted permission to intervene. FACTS The Funeral Rule The Funeral Rule was enacted on September 24. The Funeral Rule was premised on evidence that consumers are uniquely disadvantaged when they purchase funeral services after the death of a loved one. The evidence showed that funeral service providers often sold only preselected packages of goods and services such that consumers were forced to purchase goods and services they did not want. [fn1] the purpose was to prevent funeral service providers from forcing customers to purchase goods or services they did not want.[fn2] However.
	03-1429 -- MAINSTREAM MARKETING SERVICES INC. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION -- 02/17/2004 The primary issue in this case is whether the First Amendment prevents the government from establishing an opt in telemarketing regulation that provides a mechanism for consumers to restrict commercial sales calls but does not provide a similar mechanism to limit charitable or political calls.
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that the case was properly removed to federal court. The propriety of remand is the only issue before us. As it was in the district court. Which permits removal where a person is sued for actions taken under the direction of a federal officer. Philip Morris claims it satisfies the requirements of the federal officer statute because it was acting under the direct control of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) when it engaged in the allegedly unlawful conduct. Which uses a smoking machine that takes a two second puff on a cigarette every sixty seconds until the cigarette is smoked to a specified length. The FTC was aware that the testing method did not measure the amount of tar or nicotine that an individual smoker may receive. The purpose of the test was not to replicate human smoking but to provide a basis for comparison. Which was conditioned on suspension of the formal rulemaking proceedings. Our review of that denial is de novo. (3) have a colorable federal defense. The Supreme Court explained why the federal officer removal statute was not meant to be given a
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	02-6101 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. KUYKENDALL -- 06/10/2004 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
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Richard E. With him on the brief was John F. Gaine was on the brief for amicus curiae Man aged Funds Association. Because the regulation of their advertising practices was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (
	OPINION/ORDER Agin were on brief.
	OPINION/ORDER Agin were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief for the amici curiae in support of the appellees. Appellees' Br. at 12. 2 The other federal agencies sued in this action are the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Trans Union contends the regulations unlawfully restrict a CRA's ability to disclose and reuse certain consumer information because (1) a CRA is not a
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs were Gregory G. With him on the brief was Rhonda M. Peter Buscemi was on the brief for amici curiae State and Local Bar Associations in support of appellees. Babb were on the brief for amicus curiae The Conference of Chief Justices in support of appellee American Bar Association. The Bar Associations sought a declaratory judgment that the FTC's decision that attorneys engaged in the practice of law are covered by the Gramm Leach Bliley Act (
	OPINION/ORDER The fourth claim was for negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiffs also assert that primary jurisdiction was an improper basis for dismissal. That their unjust enrichment claim was improperly dismissed on the ground that they had not pled individual reliance. That they should have been allowed to amend their complaint. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.1 The District Court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) and (6). Which confers federal jurisdiction over class actions where
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Howard M. With him on the brief was John F. Under the Federal Trade Commission Act the statute under which petitioners seek review of the letter we only have jurisdiction over challenges to FTC trade regulation rules or
	OPINION/ORDER You filed an application for a credit card and you are now eligible to receive your MasterCard.
	OPINION/ORDER
	NIEMAN V. DRYCLEAN U.S.A. FRANCHISE CO. (6/21/1999, NO. 97-4745) The district court held that the Franchise Rule applied extraterritorially and therefore Nieman was entitled to refund of his deposit. The basis of Nieman's suit was that DUSA had failed to make the disclosures required under the DUTPA and under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Franchise Rule. DUSA defended on the ground that the DUTPA and the Franchise Rule do not apply because this transaction took place in Argentina and the DUTPA and the Franchise Rule have no extraterritorial application.
	NIEMAN V. DRYCLEAN U.S.A. FRANCHISE CO. (6/21/1999, NO. 97-4745) The district court held that the Franchise Rule applied extraterritorially and therefore Nieman was entitled to refund of his deposit. The basis of Nieman's suit was that DUSA had failed to make the disclosures required under the DUTPA and under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Franchise Rule. DUSA defended on the ground that the DUTPA and the Franchise Rule do not apply because this transaction took place in Argentina and the DUTPA and the Franchise Rule have no extraterritorial application.
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiff alleges she was harmed by deceptive lending practices of a dealer from whom she purchased an automobile. Three Circuit Courts of Appeals have encountered nearly identical TILA claims and all have concluded plaintiffs could not state a claim.1 Following those courts. We will affirm. I. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations. The facts in this case are uncomplicated.2 Ramadan purchased a used Hyundai for $4. The sale was achieved through a Retail Installment Contract (
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief were Neil R. With her on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Jason Kearns. Of counsel was Arnold I. This case was submitted after oral argument on May 5. That CITA's acceptance for consideration of certain petitions was arbitrary and capricious in that it conflicted with its published procedures. Data describing current market disruption is required. Previously existing quotas on the importation of textiles and apparel products made in WTO member 05 1209 2 countries were to be gradually phased out by January 1. A specific textile safeguard provision was included in paragraph 242 of the Accession Report to provide temporary relief against market disruption caused or threatened by influxes of Chinese imports of textiles and apparel. The mechanics of the procedures are described in more detail in the trial court's opinion. This case relates to twelve petitions filed after October 2004 that have been accepted for consideration by CITA. Because the ATC had not yet expired when the petitions were filed.
	OPINION/ORDER Failing to notify U.S. consumers that it is illegal to buy and sell foreign lottery tickets. It is difficult if not impossible to separate the actions of the various corporations. There were multiple variations on the offers extended. Telemarketers promised would be buyers that
	OPINION/ORDER Retailers who market wallpaper by providing sample books and showroom displays have feuded with dealers who sell at a discount through toll free
	OPINION/ORDER Challenging the FDA's jurisdiction over tobacco products and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.1 Plaintiffs then filed a 1 When the complaint was filed on August 10. All references in this opinion are to the final version of the rule published in the Federal Register on August 28. They have been added for emphasis unless otherwise indicated. 13 motion for summary judgment in the district court. Jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) and 1292(b). We are of opinion that the FDA lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. 1996 regulations of tobacco products are thus invalid. All 50 States have already banned the sale of tobacco to minors under state law. Tobacco products fit within these definitions because they are
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Alan B. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Although federal student loan policy now recognizes school misconduct defenses against lenders who have
	TRANS UNION V. FTC With him on the brief was Stephen L. Argued the cause for respondent.
	DAVIS V. S. ENERGY HOMES, INC. (9/19/2002, NO. 01-13831) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: The important question presented in this appeal is whether the MagnusonMoss Warranty Act permits or prohibits the enforcement of pre dispute binding arbitration clauses within written warranties. II. (1) ISSUES Whether Southern waived its right to appeal the district court's order denying its Motion to Compel Arbitration when Southern conceded that the district court was bound by its prior decision in Yeomans. (2) Whether the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act permits or precludes enforcement of binding arbitration agreements with respect to written warranty claims. A. Waiver of Right to Appeal 3 DISCUSSION The Davises contend that Southern waived its right to appeal by acknowledging to the district court that the court was bound by its prior holding in Yeomans. Southern argued in its initial motion and brief to the district court that Yeomans and the cases Yeomans relies upon are incorrect. Argues that the MMWA is similar to these other statutes because nothing in the MMWA's text. Are unreasonable.
	DAVIS V. S. ENERGY HOMES, INC. (9/19/2002, NO. 01-13831) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was Stephen L. With him on the brief were Debra A. The Federal Trade Commission determined that these lists were
	OPINION/ORDER The letter stated in pertinent part: YOU ARE EITHER HONEST OR DISHONEST YOU CANNOT BE BOTH Your creditor believed you to be honest when credit was extended. Is a debt collection agency. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information will be used for that purpose. Or misleading representation[s] or means
	SAN HUAN V. ITC
	OPINION/ORDER Requires a plaintiff to prove that an allegedly
	FTC V. HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS FTC V. THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT WAS FORESEEABLE AND GRANTED STATE ACTION IMMUNITY TO THE BOARD. THE BOARD'S FIRST ACT WAS BUILDING A NEW FACILITY ADJACENT TO THE ONLY HOSPITAL THEN IN EXISTENCE IN LEE COUNTY. ONCE THE NEW FACILITY WAS COMPLETED. LEE MEMORIAL IS A PUBLIC. THE BOARD WAS ALSO GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO BE A VOTING MEMBER OF. OR CORPORATION IS VIOLATING. OR IS ABOUT TO VIOLATE. AND (2) THAT THE ENJOINING THEREOF PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT BY THE COMMISSION AND UNTIL SUCH COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED BY THE COMMISSION OR SET ASIDE BY THE COURT ON REVIEW. THE BOARD FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CHALLENGED ACQUISITION WAS IMMUNIZED UNDER THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE. THE REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON MAY 17. STANDARD OF REVIEW THE APPLICATION OF THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE IS A QUESTION OF LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DE NOVO REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT. SEE BOLT V."> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
	FTC V. HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS FTC V. THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT WAS FORESEEABLE AND GRANTED STATE ACTION IMMUNITY TO THE BOARD. THE BOARD'S FIRST ACT WAS BUILDING A NEW FACILITY ADJACENT TO THE ONLY HOSPITAL THEN IN EXISTENCE IN LEE COUNTY. ONCE THE NEW FACILITY WAS COMPLETED. LEE MEMORIAL IS A PUBLIC. THE BOARD WAS ALSO GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO BE A VOTING MEMBER OF. OR CORPORATION IS VIOLATING. OR IS ABOUT TO VIOLATE. AND (2) THAT THE ENJOINING THEREOF PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT BY THE COMMISSION AND UNTIL SUCH COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED BY THE COMMISSION OR SET ASIDE BY THE COURT ON REVIEW. THE BOARD FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CHALLENGED ACQUISITION WAS IMMUNIZED UNDER THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE. THE REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON MAY 17. STANDARD OF REVIEW THE APPLICATION OF THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE IS A QUESTION OF LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DE NOVO REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT. SEE BOLT V."> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Ronald S. With her on the brief were David M. Adopted an improper presumption in concluding there was a sufficient risk of future violations warranting a cease and desist reme dy. KPMG also contends that the cease and desist order is overbroad and vague. We hold that although KPMG did not have fair notice of the Commission's interpretation of AICPA Rule 302. We also hold that several contentions are waived. Although the Com mission's explanation on reconsideration of the basis for its conclusion that there was a risk of future harm might leave ambiguous whether simply one or more than one of the violations would be sufficient to meet its standard for entry of a cease and desist order. There is no ambiguity here that the Commission on remand would reach the same result. The evidentiary hearing was to determine if KPMG had engaged in improper professional conduct in violation of Rule 2 02 of Regulation S X and caused violations of Section 13(a) of the Act and Rule 13a 1 thereunder.
	OPINION/ORDER Low is substituted for his predecessor as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of California. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are three insurance companies and one trade organization of insurance companies who do business in California. To persons in Europe to file certain information about those policies with the Commissioner.1 Cal. 1 The information that the insurance companies must provide is: (1) the number of insurance policies. The reporting requirement also applies to insurance companies that do business in California and are
	OPINION/ORDER Low is substituted for his predecessor as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of California. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are three insurance companies and one trade organization of insurance companies who do business in California. To persons in Europe to file certain information about those policies with the Commissioner.1 Cal. 1 The information that the insurance companies must provide is: (1) the number of insurance policies. The reporting requirement also applies to insurance companies that do business in California and are
	OPINION/ORDER The data collected by the Commission pursuant to section 1606 of Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations is maintained in an electronic database. The Commission's database provided the foundation of information for the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program and is used frequently by consumers. Claim that these California regulations are preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION were adopted but before they went into effect. The district court held that the California regulations are preempted. 517 (1992). [1] To determine whether California's regulations are preempted by EPCA. We are instructed to first
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs are charities that Indiana's Telephone Privacy Act (
	OPINION/ORDER The data collected by the Commission pursuant to section 1606 of Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations is maintained in an electronic database. The Commission's database provided the foundation of information for the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program and is used frequently by consumers. Claim that these California regulations are preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. After these regulations were adopted but before they went into effect. The district court held that the California regulations are preempted. To determine whether California's regulations are preempted by EPCA. We are instructed to first
	CUNNINGHAM V. FLEETWOOD HOMES OF GEORGIA (6/6/2001, NO. 00-12225) Concluding that Fleetwood was a third party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement but that the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act precludes arbitration of the Cunninghams' written or express warranty claims. We assume for the purpose of deciding this case that Fleetwood is entitled to the benefit of the arbitration agreement.
	CUNNINGHAM V. FLEETWOOD HOMES OF GEORGIA (6/6/2001, NO. 00-12225) Concluding that Fleetwood was a third party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement but that the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act precludes arbitration of the Cunninghams' written or express warranty claims. We assume for the purpose of deciding this case that Fleetwood is entitled to the benefit of the arbitration agreement.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for Philip Morris appellants. Were on brief for United States Tobacco Company appellants. Were on brief for appellees. The specific plaintiffs appellants are Philip Morris Incorporated. The specific defendants appellees are L. We consider the statutes' respective texts along with the relevant historical and legislative contexts in which they were enacted. Normally we consider the record evidence with respect to each motion separately
	OPINION/ORDER Estrada was on brief for the petitioners. . Schaerr were on brief for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation. . Thompson was on the brief for amicus curiae Grocery Manufacturers of America. Was on brief for the respondent. . Commission) cease and desist order. The Commission found that Novar tis's advertisements of its Doan's back pain remedies were ". Doan's over the counter back pain products have been mar keted for over ninety years. After Novartis's predecessor in interest Ciba Geigy Corporation (Ciba). Doan's has a weak image in comparison to the leading brands of analgesics and would benefit from positioning itself as a more effective product that is strong enough for the types of backaches sufferers usually get.".
	OPINION/ORDER Estrada was on brief for the petitioners. Schaerr were on brief for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation. Thompson was on the brief for amicus curiae Grocery Manufacturers of America. Was on brief for the respondent. The Commission found that Novar tis's advertisements of its Doan's back pain remedies were
	OPINION/ORDER (2) the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the false statements are actionable under a constructive fraud theory because of their tendency to deceive others. The plaintiffs' purpose in entering the agreement was to build and operate a fast food Before plaintiffs entered into the They also met with two Weiss provided plaintiffs franchise agreement. Unless they are supported by demographic research. . . . it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice . . . for any franchisor or franchise broker: *** (b) To make any oral. Unless: (1) At the time such representation is made. Such representation is relevant to the geographic market in which the franchise is to be located. (2) At the time such representation is made. Such material is made available to any prospective franchisee . . . . (3) Such representation is set forth in detail along with the material bases and assumptions therefor in a single legible written document whose text accurately. (4) The following statement is clearly and conspicuously disclosed in the document described by paragraph (b)(3) of this section in immediate conjunction with such representation and in not less than twelve point upper and lower case boldface type: CAUTION These figures are only estimates of what we think you may earn.
	OPINION/ORDER Third party payor organizations that provide medical benefits for their members which are used to purchase the drug. The plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint based on its conclusion that the settlement agreement was not a violation of antitrust law and that the plaintiffs did not suffer antitrust injury as a result of the alleged violation. Arising out of circumstances surrounding a lawsuit in which a drug manufacturer alleged that its patent for the drug tamoxifen citrate (
	03-6014 -- POWERS V. HARRIS -- 08/23/2004 Who are members of the Oklahoma State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors (
	OPINION/ORDER The decision and order is enforced. Is estimated to be the fourth or fifth largest hog slaughterer in the United States. Hog producers deliver hogs to Excel's buying stations where the hogs are placed into a holding pen. The hogs are then transported to one of Excel's three slaughtering facilities (located in Illinois. The hogs are
	O:\CIRCULATED OPINIONS\NLRB V. COOPER TIRE\FINAL OPINION.WPD With him on the briefs were Nancy A. With him on the brief was Helene D. Circuit Judge: The threshold issue in this case is whether the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had jurisdiction to enforce subpoenas issued by the National Labor Relations Board (
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations who rely on professional charitable solicitors for their fundraising. The Act exempts telephone solicitations made by charitable organizations if
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Matthew W. With him on the brief were John M. With him on the brief were James M. Of counsel were Rodney G. The central questions before the Commission were whether: (1) the cameras were first sold abroad (making their refurbishment infringing regardless of whether they were repaired or reconstructed). Fuji challenges the order on the ground that the Commission erred in finding that certain of Jazz's lensfitted film packages (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Joan Dreskin. With him on the briefs were Anne K. With him on the briefs was Brett A. With him on the brief were John S. The Act's fundamental purpose is to protect natural gas consumers from the monopoly power of natural gas pipelines. (Marketing affiliates are the separate affiliates of pipelines that sell natural gas. (ii) a factual record consisting of complaints by other sellers who were competing with pipelines' marketing affiliates and of documented abuses by pipelines and their marketing affiliates. Traders) that are affiliated with pipelines. Indicated that abuse by pipelines and non marketing affiliates was a real problem in the 4 industry. That the factual record on which FERC relied was barren and did not contain a single example of abuse involving non marketing affiliates. We therefore hold that the Order is arbitrary and capricious as applied to natural gas pipelines. We will grant the petition. Processors distill
	OPINION/ORDER The primary issue involves whether the relevant provision of FTAIA is jurisdictional or whether it states an additional element of a Sherman Act claim. What the outcome will be. Plaintiffs United Phosphorus and Shroff's United Chemicals are chemical manufacturers based in India. Miller & Associates is an American firm. Which was involved in a joint venture with the Indian plaintiffs. The defendants are Angus Chemical and its officers. Which we will refer to collectively as Angus. The issue of the court's subject matter jurisdiction was first raised soon after the case was filed in 1994. Angus' Rule 12(b)(1) motion was denied. That allegation is consistent with a report from the Centers for Disease Control. The parties tell us that
	CROSBY V. HOSPITAL AUTH. OF VALDOSTA AND LOWNDES CTY. This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Crosby v. Who was denied staff privileges by the Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County ( </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-8187.opa.html">CROSBY V. HOSPITAL AUTH. OF VALDOSTA AND LOWNDES CTY.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Crosby v. Who was denied staff privileges by the Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County ( </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.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="446"></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="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul28/03-20834-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With the district court's finding that the statement in the body of the letter is not deceptive and in violation of § 1692e(10). The letter leads an unsophisticated consumer to falsely believe that the settlement offer is a one time. It sent a collection notice letter to Goswami A second form letter was sent on January 25. The second letter was sent to Goswami in an envelope which bore a half inch thick blue bar across the entire envelope which contained the words </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-7007.html">PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA V. DISBLED AMERICAN VETS<BR></A><BR> For petitioner Paralyzed Veterans of America.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Lawrence B. Argued for petitioner Disabled American Veterans.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Ronald L. Joseph Holmes.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Stephen B. Flagg</u </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/012312P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Several retailers who sell tobacco products in Iowa filed this action contending that § 142A.6(6) is preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA). The Control Act seeks to reduce tobacco use </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.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-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/003410.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the dismissal under Fed. Who are cigarette wholesalers. The District Court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Sherman Act because the tobacco companies were immune from antitrust liability under both the Noerr Pennington and Parker immunity doctrines. We agree they are immune under the Noerr Pennington doctrine but not under the Parker doctrine. We will affirm. Are cigarette manufacturers who were original signatories to the Multistate Settlement Agreement. They are collectively known as the major tobacco companies or the Majors. The Majors are responsible for 98% of cigarette sales in the United States. </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.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-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/014420p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The solicitation stated that the interest rate was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011435.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Those events and their ramifications have not yet mooted any aspect of this case. The district court and the parties will undoubtedly have to deal with these issues in considering any prospective relief. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1460.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Palou & Miranda were on brief for appellant. Roberto Boneta and Mu oz Boneta Gonz lez Arbona Ben tez & Peral were on brief for appellee. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="407"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2033p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue in this appeal is whether retailers have standing under S 43(a) of the Lanham Act. I. Appellants are a putative nationwide class of retail sellers of motor oil and other engine lubricants that purportedly compete with Slick 50. The Appellees were enjoined from disseminating false or unsubstantiated claims regarding Slick 50 and agreed to provide $10 million in discounts. Certain state consumer protection statutes that are not at issue in this appeal. At any time between the time Slick 50 was first marketed to the public and the present. Have offered for sale. The harm the Appellants allege they suffered is loss of sales of products they sell. The District Court held that only </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0424p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although the action was not technically mooted by events subsequent to the initiation of the action. We affirm the judgment of the district court because the action was not ripe. Cox Nos. 01 2392/2518 Ammex is a Michigan corporation that operates a United States Customs Class 9 bonded warehouse and duty free store in Detroit. The Ammex store is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012458.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The first class is composed of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="395"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033370p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gordon and two corporations of which he is the sole shareholder. The Hospital was entitled to immunity from money damages regarding the professional review actions at issue.1 Thereafter. We will affirm the comprehensive rulings of the District Court2 that resulted in judgment for the Hospital as to all claims. Is the only hospital serving Mifflin and Juniata counties in Pennsylvania. It provides primary and secondary acute inpatient care in addition to 1 The immunity provided by the HCQIA for persons engaging in the peer review process is limited to damages liability. 42 U.S.C. § 11111(a). The Credentialing Policy states in part that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov98/97-6963.man.html">ELLIS V. GEN. MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. (11/13/1998, NO. 97-6963)<BR></A><BR> GMAC was exempted from liability under TILA. On appeal the Ellises argue that the statute of limitations was suspended by the doctrine of equitable tolling and that. We find that TILA is subject to equitable tolling but that GMAC. Is not liable for the TILA violations alleged.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> The Ellises' claim derives from their purchase of a 1993 Saturn SL 2 from Royal Oldsmobile ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov98/97-6963.man.html">ELLIS V. GEN. MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. (11/13/1998, NO. 97-6963)<BR></A><BR> GMAC was exempted from liability under TILA. On appeal the Ellises argue that the statute of limitations was suspended by the doctrine of equitable tolling and that. We find that TILA is subject to equitable tolling but that GMAC. Is not liable for the TILA violations alleged.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> The Ellises' claim derives from their purchase of a 1993 Saturn SL 2 from Royal Oldsmobile ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="392"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052785p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> REAL VEBA is a multipleemployer/employee welfare benefit trust. Who are beneficiaries of the REAL VEBA Trust. Koresko is the sole shareholder in Koresko and Associates. 4 Community Trust Company (CTC) is state chartered trust company. It is the trustee of REAL VEBA and maintains an account in REAL VEBA's name. CTC claims that the subpoena requires it to disclose documents which are either personal financial records of REAL VEBA beneficiaries or copies of documents which the Secretary has already received from the respondents in Koresko.3 Therefore. CTC argued that the Secretary could not enforce the subpoena because REAL VEBA is not covered by ERISA and. Because the scope of the investigation is beyond the Secretary's investigatory authority. CTC is forbidden by the GLBA and the RFPA from releasing the information. CTC has appealed the District Court's rulings that DOL did not need to establish jurisdiction and that REAL VEBA is not protected by the RFPA. The Secretary of Labor has broad authority to conduct investigations to determine whether any person has violated or is about to violate Title I of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1134. 6 4 The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5293a.html">AMATEL JOSEPH V. HAWK, KATHLEEN<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs <p> <p> <p> were <i>Frank W. With her <p> on the brief were <i>Ann M. Taylor</i> was on the brief for amici curiae National <p> Coalition for the Protection of Children &. The statute is not enforced directly. Ruled that it <p> was facially invalid as a violation of the First Amendment and <p> enjoined its enforcement. Federal regulations authorized prison wardens <p> to reject a publication </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/97-5293a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Frank W. With her on the brief were Ann M. Taylor was on the brief for amici curiae National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families. The statute is not enforced directly. Ruled that it was facially invalid as a violation of the First Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. Federal regulations authorized prison wardens to reject a publication </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5352a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Richard B. With him on the brief were Michelle M. Fred Wertheimer. 2 Trevor Potter was on the brief for amici curiae John McCain. Federal campaign finance law is complex. BCRA is no exception. Though few of its details are important to this litigation (and those that are we describe later in our analysis). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/00-12858.man.html">RICHARDSON V. PALM HARBOR HOMES (6/28/2001, NO. 00-12858)<BR></A><BR> (The Richardsons have not invoked our pendent appellate jurisdiction to cross appeal. The part of the order compelling arbitration is therefore not before us.). It would not bar arbitration of the specific claims that the Richardsons have made against Palm Harbor. It is content to supplement state law implied warranties only by prohibiting their disclaimer in certain circumstances. (3) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200012858.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (The Richardsons have not invoked our pendent appellate jurisdiction to cross appeal. The part of the order compelling arbitration is therefore not before us.). It would not bar arbitration of the specific claims that the Richardsons have made against Palm Harbor. Richardson to arbitrate because she is not a party to the arbitration agreement. Richardson is a third party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement. The FTC's regulations 2 The MMWA provides in pertinent part: (1) Congress hereby declares it to be its policy to encourage warrantors to establish procedures whereby consumer disputes are fairly and expeditiously settled through informal dispute settlement mechanisms. (2) The Commission shall prescribe rules setting forth minimum requirements for any informal dispute settlement procedure which is incorporated into the terms of a written warranty to which any provision of this chapter applies. Unless the named plaintiffs (upon notifying the defendant that they are named plaintiffs in a class action with respect to a warranty obligation) initially resort to such procedure. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(a). 6 written warranty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200012858.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (The Richardsons have not invoked our pendent appellate jurisdiction to cross appeal. The part of the order compelling arbitration is therefore not before us.). It would not bar arbitration of the specific claims that the Richardsons have made against Palm Harbor. Richardson to arbitrate because she is not a party to the arbitration agreement. Richardson is a third party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement. The provision of a federal claim for breach of some warranties and this strong preference for nonbinding informal dispute 2 The MMWA provides in pertinent part: (1) Congress hereby declares it to be its policy to encourage warrantors to establish procedures whereby consumer disputes are fairly and expeditiously settled through informal dispute settlement mechanisms. (2) The Commission shall prescribe rules setting forth minimum requirements for any informal dispute settlement procedure which is incorporated into the terms of a written warranty to which any provision of this chapter applies. Unless the named plaintiffs (upon notifying the defendant that they are named plaintiffs in a class action with respect to a warranty obligation) initially resort to such procedure. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(a). resolution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/00-12858.man.html">RICHARDSON V. PALM HARBOR HOMES (6/28/2001, NO. 00-12858)<BR></A><BR> (The Richardsons have not invoked our pendent appellate jurisdiction to cross appeal. The part of the order compelling arbitration is therefore not before us.). It would not bar arbitration of the specific claims that the Richardsons have made against Palm Harbor. It is content to supplement state law implied warranties only by prohibiting their disclaimer in certain circumstances. (3) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2262.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The FDIC insures deposits in financial institutions and is authorized by statute to act as receiver for insured institutions that fail and are closed by their chartering authority. 12 U.S.C. 1811. When the FDIC is appointed receiver for a failed institution. The FDIC is authorized to collect all obligations and moneys owed to failed institutions for the benefit of the institution's creditors and shareholders. The FDIC is empowered to avoid fraudulent transfers. Parks was a director of Olympic International Bank and Trust Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/031127P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Parker was charged in a twenty count indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. All three co defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud. Were charged with mail fraud. While Parker alone was charged with money laundering. Parker's concept in forming FCI was to sell exclusive distributorships to investors who would sell FCI brand name automotive parts on a consignment basis. After an account was established. Were of substandard quality. Parker himself claimed in a 1996 lawsuit against his brake manufacturer that the brakes were subject to premature wear. Parker assured the complaining distributors that they were the only ones experiencing recurrent problems. The government alleged that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FEE5A054B33EB5B688256CFA005AC157/$file/0135406.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MetroNet is able to meet the Centrex 21 line minimum and pass on Centrex volume discounts to MetroNet's customers. By requiring that each location receiving discounted Centrex features have at least 21 lines. The district court's grant of summary judgment was in error. Although it is indeed a close question. Call waiting and call hold (the features component).3 The access component of Centrex is regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/772EC902242035D388256D2C007AFEB1/$file/0135406.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At slip op. 4495. Replace the sentence beginning </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/003403.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The gravamen of its complaint was that the managed health care organizations impaired the quality of health care provided by psychiatrists to their patients by refusing to authorize necessary psychiatric treatment. The principal issue on appeal is whether the Pennsylvania Psychiatric Society has properly pleaded associational and third party standing. P. 12(b)(6) was premature. We will vacate and remand for further proceedings. 1. SS 1001 1461.2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. The case was removed from state court under ERISA's civil enforcement provision. To discern which claims are preempted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUyOTUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3823-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on the ground that defendant Tower Semiconductor Ltd. is a foreign private issuer exempt from Rule 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of Exchange Act Rule 3a12 3(b). The complaint alleges that a Tower proxy statement issued by defendants was materially misleading and therefore </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUyOTUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5295-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on the ground that defendant Tower Semiconductor Ltd. is a foreign private issuer exempt from Rule 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of Exchange Act Rule 3a12 3(b). The complaint alleges that a Tower proxy statement issued by defendants was materially misleading and therefore </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/03-1361a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Thomas F. Bernard and Jeremy Kyle Kinner were on the brief of amici curiae Indigenous Environmental Network. With him on the brief were Thomas L. With him on the briefs were Alan F. Nick Goldstein were on the brief of industry intervenors in support of respondent. Henderson were on the brief of amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation in support of respondent. Wolff were on the brief of amicus curiae John D. Circuit Judge: Petitioners are twelve states. They are opposed by the Environmental Protection Agency as respondent. The controversy is about EPA's denial of a petition asking it to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions from new motor 5 vehicles under § 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. EPA concluded that it did not have statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and that. Have jurisdiction over citizen suits to compel EPA to perform nondiscretionary acts or duties. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2). We have jurisdiction only if EPA thereby engaged in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1141b.html">TRANS UNION CORPORATION V. FTC<BR></A><BR> <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200110/00-1141b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The same is true here: Trans Union's target marketing lists interest only Trans Union and its target marketing customers. Trans Union's lists are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-6067.htm">01-6067 -- TELECOR COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. -- 09/10/2002<BR></A><BR> At issue is Southwestern Bell's domination of the Oklahoma pay phone market. The plaintiffs are nine independent pay phone service providers whose efforts to compete with Southwestern Bell succeeded only in whittling down the latter's market share to roughly 80 percent after two years of competition. We nevertheless believe that the challenged rulings were proper. Subject to certain regulatory requirements. <p> Pay phone service providers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/99-15021.man.html">SPAIN V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. (10/18/2000, NO. 99-15021)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/99-15021.man.html">SPAIN V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. (10/18/2000, NO. 99-15021)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/031268p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an action seeking an injunction against a planned Medicare audit of New Jersey teaching hospitals by the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services. The District Court held that it did not have standing to consider plaintiffs' claims under the Administrative Procedures Act. We will affirm. Plaintiffs contend defendant's planned audit of their billing records would use an improper standard and should be enjoined.1 The Medicare program is the responsibility of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The program is administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Plaintiffs are the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and two corporations associated with it: the Cooper Health System. The claims of all parties are based on the proposed audit of the university's teaching hospitals. 4 the carriers handle the billing and payment. They have initial responsibility for ensuring compliance with the statutes and regulations governing Medicare billing of individually billable services.2 Medicare payments to healthcare providers fall under two categories. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0AE36BB776D83EF6882570D6007BE5ED/$file/0215907.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. No further petitions for panel rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be entertained. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292(a)(2) and affirm. ALISAL WATER CORP. 16325 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-3.gif" ALT="351"></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-3.gif" ALT="350"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2370.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for Farmland Dairies. Were on brief for appellees. Inc. is a non profit trade association representing New York milk processors and distributors of fluid milk products. It is joined by five fluid milk processors and distributors that procure raw milk from dairy farms outside of New England and distribute fluid milk in New England. The Commission's primary purpose is to regulate milk prices in the signatory states. The delegation members' compensation is determined and paid by the individual states. The highest prices are charged for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210171.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1379.html">NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION, V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Daniel J. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Matthew J. With him on the brief were <u>Phyllis E. On the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Stephen J. Therefore still was covered by an antidumping duty order. Even though the altered products were not within the literal scope of the order. The Court of International Trade held that the altered products were ". Is ultra vires.". S inquiry was permissible. Commerce found that such steel products from Japan were being ". That term was defined in the petition that led to the investigation. The parties agree that that is the proper definition. We have no reason to disagree. </p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0102p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which made a notable ruling that defendant appellant Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/94-4561.opa.html">JCC, INC. V. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>JCC. BACKGROUND<p> <p> The factual background and procedural history of this case have already been well documented in the opinions of the ALJ and the Commission. Is engaged in soliciting or in accepting orders (other than in a clerical capacity) for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract market who does not accept any money. Or associated person is registered or exempt from registration in such capacity. Is not compensated on a per trade basis or which solely manages discretionary accounts pursuant to a power of attorney. Regardless of whether that commodity trading advisor is registered or exempt from registration in such capacity. Regardless of whether that commodity pool operator is registered or exempt from registration in such capacity.<p> <p> 17 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/94-4561.opa.html">JCC, INC. V. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>JCC. BACKGROUND<p> <p> The factual background and procedural history of this case have already been well documented in the opinions of the ALJ and the Commission. Is engaged in soliciting or in accepting orders (other than in a clerical capacity) for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract market who does not accept any money. Or associated person is registered or exempt from registration in such capacity. Is not compensated on a per trade basis or which solely manages discretionary accounts pursuant to a power of attorney. Regardless of whether that commodity trading advisor is registered or exempt from registration in such capacity. Regardless of whether that commodity pool operator is registered or exempt from registration in such capacity.<p> <p> 17 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944561.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The factual background and procedural history of this case have already been well documented in the opinions of the ALJ and the Commission. JCC was a registered futures commission merchant as required by 7 U.S.C. §§ 6d and 6f. The term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="340"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/03-1020a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="340"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/64E580A7DFBAC36A88256D24007F898B/$file/0135849.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case involves an array of antitrust law challenges to what we conclude are reasonable and unremarkable business practices. (Paladin) is a Montana corporation that marketed natural gas to industrial customers within Montana and other western states.1 Paladin obtained natural gas from producers in Canada and Montana and arranged for the gas to be transported to its customers through a pipeline owned by the defendant. Our statement of facts is adapted from the district court's description. Both parties stipulate that the district court's description is accurate. 1 PALADIN ASSOCIATES. MONTANA POWER CO. 6225 Gas produced in Canada is delivered into MPC's pipeline via the NOVA Corporation's pipeline in Alberta. Gas produced in Montana is delivered into MPC's pipeline via another pipeline in north central Montana. Some of the gas transported interstate across MPC's pipeline is delivered into the Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) pipeline at the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="340"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1045.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alvarez LLP</U> were on brief. S</U> were on brief. The suit was dismissed at the pleadings stage under Fed. Have agreed to and created a monopoly in the JUA as to all forms of low cost compulsory insurance and have boycotted and coerced at least one broker in order to maintain that monopoly. The private insurers and the JUA argue that this monopoly is a result required by the state law. That is untrue. The claims before us are a different matter: a federal antitrust suit raises different issues than issues of compliance with local statutes. It was estimated that only 25 percent to 30 percent of the vehicles in Puerto Rico were covered under some type of liability insurance.</SPAN></P> <P style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="335"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/022906p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The MSA was entered into 1. This suit is just one in a series attacking the MSA and statutes passed pursuant to it. These suits have been unsuccessful. We note that the Majors are not named defendants in this particular litigation as this court concluded in an earlier decision that the Majors were immune from antitrust liability under the Noerr Pennington doctrine. Lorillard Tobacco. 5 Bedell and will be repeated here only to the extent necessary for the discussion and analysis. The MSA was negotiated after various lawsuits were either brought or threatened against the Majors and other tobacco companies by States seeking to recover Medicaid funds that they spent to treat tobacco related diseases. Pennsylvania filed suit against the Majors in April 1997 and the suit was settled as part of the MSA.3 Under the MSA. Provisions that the Plaintiffs allege were to be funded by the payment by wholesalers and consumers of artificially high prices for cigarettes. Plaintiffs further contend that after the MSA was entered into. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="335"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/12/012616P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that there was no evidence that Grendahl or the other defendants had obtained a credit report on Phillips by false pretenses. The court rejected Phillips's contention that he had pleaded a claim for wrongful disclosure of a consumer report and stated that such a claim would not be viable anyway because the document at issue in this case was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1856.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Skolnik were on brief for appellants. Noonberg were on brief for appellees. Plaintiffs are a group of Maine employers who claim that the defendant insurance companies illegally conspired to fix prices and conduct a boycott in a successful effort to coerce the state legislature into permitting higher rates for workers' compensation insurance.1 The district court granted summary judgment for defendants based on the doctrines established in Parker v. 365 U.S. 127 (1961).2 The court concluded that plaintiffs' claimed damage the additional cost of their insurance was attributable to the legislation rather than to the alleged conspiracy. A voluntary association of insurers that is a state licensed rating organization. 2 In briefest summary. Regulation is strict. All employers who do not self insure are required to purchase such insurance. Insurers are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2155.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is only if no one pays any attention to what the other ones are doing. Local levels often have overlapping competence. One area where this risk can materialize is in the regulation of the nation's waterways. This case is about an attempt to make the most of each participants' efforts. Their efforts were not greeted with enthusiasm by at least one group. Home Builders alleged that the ICA was adopted without sufficient notice and comment under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The district court dismissed the action on the ground that it was nonjusticiable. The Act is designed to establish a comprehensive program to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/02-4030.htm">02-4030 -- HEIDEMAN V. SOUTH SALTLAKE CITY -- 11/04/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/04-1434a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Cameron Cohick and Gregory E. With him on the brief were Giovanni P. Circuit Judge: This is a petition for review of the Securities and Exchange Commission's regulation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="305"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B7C562F79A6F968B88256F020058E953/$file/0355179.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="305"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4063.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Government acts in bad faith when its claim (1) is entirely without color and (2) has been asserted wantonly. [Haroldsen] has had or should have had knowledge of the content of the sales materials and sales presentations described . . . including specifically the language cited in Counts One through Sixteen. Has known or should have known that the representations described in Counts One through Sixteen were and are false and misleading. Haroldsen is. Defendants also were required to submit financial statements that established their inability to pay consumer redress. Individual defendants Robert Brazell andDon Gull were officers. Defendant Kelly Haroldsen was an officer and director ofSSF. Defendants Annette Brazell and Dana Gull are thewives ofRobert Brazell andDon Gull. These transfers were the subject of counts XVII and XVIII of the complaint. Counsel and parties will be requested to report to the court throughout the day on any progress made. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="303"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/033307P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Charles Davenport and Brent Johnson1 are both Minnesota residents who have purchased property and automobile insurance policies from Farmers for over ten years. Is licensed to do business in Minnesota. The district court determined that the MIFIRA was not preempted by the FCRA. That the MIFIRA did not provide the plaintiffs any relief because it allowed disclosure of personal information without written authorization where such disclosure was permitted by another law. Where state law is inconsistent with the FCRA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="303"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-5009.htm">98-5009 -- MOBIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCING U.S., INC. V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR -- 06/16/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Occidental Oil &. 1291. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1047.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Posner and Rubin & Rudman were on brief for plaintiff. Spaeth and Hale and Dorr LLP were on brief for appellees New England Power Company and New England Electric System (NEES). Hoag & Eliot LLP were on brief for appellees Pacific Gas & Electric Company and PG&E Corporation. New England Power is a major wholesaler of electric power in New England. In the 1970s Norwood sought instead to purchase its power from New England Power and have that power delivered over the intercity transmission network of Boston Edison. The matter was resolved by settlement after Norwood brought an antitrust suit against them. The decree in the antitrust case directed that the annexed settlement agreement and power contract were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/983097P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She signed a retail installment contract that stated the dealer was assigning the contract to CAC. The installment contract required LaBarre to maintain insurance on her car until the loan was repaid and permitted LaBarre to fulfill this requirement by providing her own insurance or by obtaining insurance through CAC. We will affirm the district court's dismissal of LaBarre's complaint only if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that LaBarre can prove no set of facts entitling her to relief. The decisive question is whether RICO's application to the activities of CAC. The answer to that question is yes. LaBarre's arguments to the contrary are foreclosed by this court's holding in Doe and by the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Humana. The alleged 3 activities of First Lenders and Bankers in scheming to sell LaBarre higher priced VSI insurance rather than LPD insurance are governed by Minnesota's insurance law. CAC's alleged activities are not governed by Minnesota's insurance statutes. 459 (1969) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314588.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> SBS and HBC are the two largest owners of Spanish language radio stations in the United States. Courts have played an extremely important role in shaping the reach of the Act and the requirements for stating a cause of action under each section. 1579 n.8 (11th Cir. 1985) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="291"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/01-14137.opn.html">FTC V. TASHMAN (1/24/2003, NO. 01-14137)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="291"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/01-14137.opn.html">FTC V. TASHMAN (1/24/2003, NO. 01-14137)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="289"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/001368.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court's charge to the jury was insufficiently specific and LePage's's damages proof was speculative.2 The district court granted 3M's motion for 1. The plaintiffs in this action are LePage's Incorporated and LePage's Management Company. Both are appellees and cross appellants. 679 to which interest was to be added. We will affirm the district court's order granting the motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="289"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1182a.html">MONEY STATN INC V. FRS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="289"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-1087a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Donna N. On the brief were Thomas O. With him on the briefs were Michael K. Broadband internet service is becoming available. Two of the most widespread methods of delivering broadband service are digital subscriber line (DSL). Are steadily gaining ground. Persuaded that the agency's interpretation and application of the statutory scheme are permissible. These particular obligations are independent of any unbundling required by § 251. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="289"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012113.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 19 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5362a.html">FTC V. H.J. HEINZ CO.<BR></A><BR> Were on brief. <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="285"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200104/00-5362a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Kovner were on brief. Were on brief for The Thirty Six Amici Curiae in support of the appellant. Skiles and Jan Amundson were on brief for Grocery Manufacturers of America. Bork were on brief for Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation. The injunction was sought in aid of an FTC administrative proceeding which was subsequently instituted by complaint to challenge the merger as violative of. The baby food market is dominated by three firms. Gerber's products are found in over 90 per cent of all American supermarkets.2 By contrast. Heinz is sold in approximately 40 per cent of all supermarkets. Its sales are nationwide but concentrated in northern New England. Heinz is the largest producer of baby food in the world with $1 billion in sales worldwide. Its domestic baby food products with annual net sales of $103 million are manufactured at its Pittsburgh. Which was updated in 1991 at a cost of $120 million. That is. Of which 72 per cent is jarred baby food. Its jarred 1 The facts as set forth herein are based on the district court's factual findings and the record material submitted by the parties. 2 Product volume in retail stores throughout the country is mea sured by the product's All Commodity Volume (ACV). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114137.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The investing public is concerned with two factors when confronted with a business opportunity: risk and reward. This point was underscored in a recent case in this Court. Was heavily distorted. The focus in that case was on the risk variable. I. Stephen Tashman was in the business of selling </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/05-5363a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="282"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991636.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was denied. A. The relevant facts underlying this claim are undisputed and fully detailed in the district court's opinion. DRI's gross income from its electric utility business is a function of the electricity rates it charges its customers. Many public utilities have established similar reserve accounts to meet deferred income tax liability. They may have received similar compensation from the utility serving their new residence or business). The remittance was allocated on the basis of the 1991 customers' electricity use during the preceding 12 months. The issue here is whether DRI is entitled to invoke § 1341 to obtain from the government an additional $1.2 million deduction. It was determined that the taxpayer was not entitled to the income. His only option was to deduct the amount of that income in the year of repayment he could not recalculate his income for the year of receipt. § 1341 is designed to put the taxpayer in essentially the same position he would have been in had he never received the returned income. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="280"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C69776C29CF001D88256E6F00728DAC/$file/0256842.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At slip op. 3999. Spencer Letts (before this case was reassigned to District Judge Stephen V. Spencer Letts (before this case was reassigned to District Judge Stephen V. Enforma contends that the district court's unilateral substantive amendment of the parties' stipulated proposed preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion. Enforma also argues that the findings and conclusions issued in support of the second injunction are insufficient and that the court's reliance on the court appointed expert was improper. Enforma also agreed not to sell or market any product making the above or similar claims unless it possessed and relied upon </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="279"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/020752FE40C3AEB788256E68007D0070/$file/0256842.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Enforma contends that the district court's unilateral substantive amendment of the parties' stipulated proposed preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion. ENFORMA NATURAL PRODUCTS in support of the second injunction are insufficient and that the court's reliance on the court appointed expert was improper. Leading to lower levels of fat in the Because the factual and procedural histories of both appeals are intertwined. Enforma also agreed not to sell or market any product making the above or similar claims unless it possessed and relied upon </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="274"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-5290.man.html">MCGREGOR V. CHIERICO (3/24/2000, NO. 98-5290)<BR></A><BR> Who was not a named defendant at the time. The district court entered an Emergency Show Cause Order upon finding good cause to believe the defendants had violated and were likely to further violate the Final Judgment. The court's basis for taking substantially all of the Chiericos' property and assets was its finding that the fraudulent telemarketing practices had caused </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="274"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-5290.man.html">MCGREGOR V. CHIERICO (3/24/2000, NO. 98-5290)<BR></A><BR> Who was not a named defendant at the time. The district court entered an Emergency Show Cause Order upon finding good cause to believe the defendants had violated and were likely to further violate the Final Judgment. The court's basis for taking substantially all of the Chiericos' property and assets was its finding that the fraudulent telemarketing practices had caused </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="274"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1824p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on a petition for review of a Federal Aviation Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="269"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/981762.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal of the District Court's dismissal under Fed. These rulings are now challenged on cross appeal. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court on all issues. The cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. 000 individual plaintiffs claim to have suffered physical injuries caused by defective orthopedic bone screw devices affixed to the pedicles of their spines during spinal fusion surgery. Which are intended to stabilize the spine and achieve fusion of the vertebrae. Consist of rods or plates that are screwed into the vertical axis of the lumbar spine. Plaintiffs have undergone surgery to have the devices removed. There are two types of omni actions. 7 The Plaintiffs' Legal Committee ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="269"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/04-1414a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Cynthia S. With him on the briefs was Wallace F. With him on the briefs were Noel H. With them on the brief was Robert H. With him on the brief were Ilia Levitine and Stephen G. Roby were on the brief for intervenors Wisconsin Public Power Inc. Jr. were on the brief for intervenor Duke Energy Shared Services. Is a nonprofit corporation that controls the transmission of electricity over a grid spanning 15 Midwestern states. Its original tariff was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and went into effect in 2002. Who are electricity sellers in MISO's markets subject to the new tariff's rules and liabilities. Who are electricity buyers under contracts predating the establishment of MISO. Any such rate or charge that is not just and reasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="269"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2061.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Case LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="262"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043663p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Before us is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying Appellants' motion to lift a stay of litigation which was entered pursuant to a receivership order. Appellants Leonard and Lynne Barrack ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="262"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/95-1585a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the joint briefs were Russell H. With her on the brief were Joel I. The peti tioners contend the later decision was arbitrary and capri cious. SMR licenses have increas ingly been used to provide cellular and data transmission services over a wide area. Few if any of the individuals who obtained SMR licenses with the help of an application mill intended to build transmission facilities or were even capable of doing so. Many of the application mills' customers lost their licenses and others were in jeopardy of losing them. He also took the position that receivership licensees who had voluntarily can celed their licenses were entitled to the benefit of an extended build out period. He did not have standing on behalf of the receivership licensees to challenge the agency's decisions. The agency then turned to the question whether licensees defrauded by application mills other than the four the FTC had sued (the so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="262"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1585a.html">GOODMAN DANIEL R. V. FCC<BR></A><BR> With them on </p> <p>the joint briefs were <i>Russell H. With her on the </p> <p>brief were <i>Joel I. The peti </p> <p>tioners contend the later decision was arbitrary and capri </p> <p>cious. SMR licenses have increas </p> <p>ingly been used to provide cellular and data transmission </p> <p>services over a wide area. <i>See Fresno Mobile Radio. Few if any of the individuals </p> <p>who obtained SMR licenses with the help of an application </p> <p>mill intended to build transmission facilities or were even </p> <p>capable of doing so. Many of the application mills' customers lost </p> <p>their licenses and others were in jeopardy of losing them.</p> <p>In January 1994 the Federal Trade Commission sued four </p> <p>application mills for fraud. <i>See FTC v. He also took the </p> <p>position that receivership licensees who had voluntarily can </p> <p>celed their licenses were entitled to the benefit of an extended </p> <p>build out period. He did </p> <p>not have standing on behalf of the receivership licensees to </p> <p>challenge the agency's decisions. <i>See id.</i> at 28 34 (apply </p> <p>ing 47 C.F.R. 1.106). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="257"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410688.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue is whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the Schering Plough settlements unreasonably restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 45(c). The Upsher Settlement Schering Plough ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="255"></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-2.gif" ALT="255"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0073p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs appellants are four title insurance companies that do business in Michigan: First American Title Company (a subsidiary of First American Corporation). The defendants appellees are the Registers of Deeds of five counties in Michigan: Lapeer. First American contends that this no resale condition is an anticompetitive practice that violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. We affirm the dismissal of the Sherman Act claims with regard to the challenged practices of the Tuscola County Register because those practices are covered by state action immunity from antitrust liability. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A register of deeds ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="254"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/993827.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PA 15222 Attorney for Appellant Honorable Will L. Ray Donald Loy is currently serving a 33 month term of imprisonment following his conviction for receiving and possessing child pornography. He will be required to serve thr ee years of supervised release. Two of which are at issue in this appeal. Arguing that the pornography condition is vague and overbr oad. That the condition restricting contact with minors is not only vague and unsupported by the record. Could also potentially inhibit Loy's ability to have and raise his own children. Holding that the challenge is properly made at this time. Conclude that the prohibition on pornography is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide any method for Loy or his probation officer to distinguish between those items that are merely titillating and those items that are 2 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1158.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief was Peter J. Of counsel was Jeffery C. Appellant further argues that Commerce's interpretation of its collapsing regulation is correct. Commerce must make a determination as to whether the subject merchandise is being or is likely to be sold in the United States at </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/428F9664DECF516888256A9C008197DE/$file/9956933.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: OVERVIEW Plaintiffs appellants Aqua Tri and Pool Water Products ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7B4EAC42C9C5754588256E5A00707C20/$file/9956933.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: OVERVIEW Plaintiffs appellants Aqua Tri and Pool Water Products ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="246"></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 $39 million for consumer redress is contrary to undisputed record evidence. <strong><u></strong></u> <p> In addition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/591DAF74D57F7E4C88256E5A00707CC3/$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-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D06EED7E97A7520388256AC5005C2482/$file/0055122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: It has been said that bad credit is like a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="242"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6B047236FA5A85F588256CE4005D93F2/$file/0156199.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Competition is the mainspring of a capitalist economy. Setting industry standards and pooling market data are two examples of arrangements that often benefit consumers. Up to date information about properties on the market is a must. Long gone are the days when agents trawled the neighborhood on horseback in search of telltale </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="242"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/145DCF70DD6C095F882569E300616E36/$file/9935204.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and the Amended Opinion filed concurrently with this order is substituted in its place. Judges Tashima and McKeown have voted to deny the petitions for rehearing en banc and Judge Lay so recommends. The petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are denied. Thus PacifiCorp is not shielded by the Electric Supplier Stabilization Act. PacifiCorp stipulated to the district court that it would provide wholesale electricity to SRVEA if Enron cancelled its contract and PacifiCorp is found to violate the antitrust statutes in the present case. We need not resolve these issues. 5 SRVEA also alleged that PacifiCorp violated several provisions of state law and violated federal antitrust laws with respect to four Idaho customers who are not presently served by PacifiCorp. We are satisfied the district court's order is a final order. The acknowledged purpose of this statute was to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="242"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D34252614C4EDEC788256E5A00707A1F/$file/9935204.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and the Amended Opinion filed concurrently with this order is substituted in its place. Judges Tashima and McKeown have voted to deny the petitions for rehearing en banc and Judge Lay so recommends. The petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are denied. Thus PacifiCorp is not shielded by the Electric Supplier Stabilization Act. PacifiCorp stipulated to the district court that it would provide wholesale electricity to SRVEA if Enron cancelled its contract and PacifiCorp is found to violate the antitrust statutes in the present case. We need not resolve these issues. 5 SRVEA also alleged that PacifiCorp violated several provisions of state law and violated federal antitrust laws with respect to four Idaho customers who are not presently served by PacifiCorp. We are satisfied the district court's order is a final order. The acknowledged purpose of this statute was to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="242"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/022462P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JAML) following a jury verdict. The majority of heavy duty trucks sold by dealers are manufactured only after a retail customer has solicited and accepted bids from several dealers. This is an industry wide practice. The crux of this case is Reeder's claim that Volvo gave other dealers more favorable price concessions than Volvo granted Reeder. The remaining claims the secondaryline RPA and AFPA claims were tried to a jury. Was the conference's keynote speaker. The featured guest speaker of the 1998 conference was Jon Krakauer. As well as 3 mistakenly receiving faxes from Volvo intended for other dealers which listed larger concessions than Reeder was getting. Reeder came to suspect it was one of the dealers Volvo sought to eliminate. While Reeder's price per truck was $63. It would have realized a gross profit of $30. The price Reeder's customer paid for each truck was $2. Reeder would have realized $52. Reeder would have realized additional profits for its sale. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="242"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/87AC5BCFA140B13588256D110081AFED/$file/0156199.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended. The last sentence in the first full paragraph on page 3589 is amended to read as follows: Similarly. Found that a fast food franchisor and its franchisees were a single entity. The franchisees were located too far apart to be effective competitors. The last sentence on page 3590 is amended to read as follows: Cases have required instead that the constituent entities be neither actual nor potential competitors. The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED. Circuit Judge: Competition is the mainspring of a capitalist economy. Setting industry standards and pooling market data are two examples of arrangements that often benefit consumers. Up to date information about properties on the market is a must. Long gone are the days when agents trawled the neighborhood on horseback in search of telltale </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="242"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2735A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One of history's ironies is that AT&T itself. Are expanding into long distance service. 2 Nos. 03 2735 & 03 2766 Many carriers offer local and national wireless service within each incumbent's service area. The result is vigorous competition. If the wholesale price is right. Prices for unbundled elements affect not only the allocation of income among producers but also new investment and innovation: if the price to rivals is too low. The incumbents won't maintain or upgrade their facilities (why make costly capital investments if you have to sell local loops to rivals for less than it costs to produce them?). Incumbents that have aging and inefficient equipment thus must sell for less than their historical cost. The old system that calculated rates based on actual cost of equipment plus a reasonable rate of return on capital is out the window. The Supreme Court held that TELRIC is a choice within the FCC's discretion. Nos. 03 2735 & 03 2766 3 TELRIC is a framework rather than a formula. There is considerable play in the joints. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="239"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053558p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hutchins2 appeal the district court's grant of injunctive relief and $10.2 million in fines in this action Barry Sussman is or was the Vice President of Check Investors. Hutchins is or was general counsel to Check Investors. We will affirm. I. FACTS3 Check Investors is in the business of purchasing large numbers of checks written on accounts with insufficient funds ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991218.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 5 the crossreference is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1798p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction to review thefinal orders of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The Secretary of Banking at the time of the events we describe was Sarah W. This 1991 agreement was prompted when Meritor proposed that its 12% Subordinated Capital Noteholders ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="234"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1134.html">THE TORRINGTON CO. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="233"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C468283AE31FE9A0882571A9007CF0DD/$file/0435428.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a mail solicitation for internet service is deceptive as a matter of law within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The check was addressed to the recipient and the recipient's phone number appeared on the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/983123P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Poplar Bluff is a city of 17. It is located in Butler County. It is the largest city in several counties and has numerous major employers and manufacturing operations. 000 are forty and sixty miles away from Poplar Bluff. The population in the area surrounding Poplar Bluff is concentrated in Scott and Stoddard Counties. Poplar Bluff is within a few hours' drive of several large metropolitan centers including St. Lucy Lee is a general acute care hospital that provides primary and secondary care services.2 Lucy Lee has 201 licensed beds. 185 of which are staffed. Its average daily census was 75 in 1994. Doctors' Regional Medical Center in Poplar Bluff is presently owned by a group of physicians. It is also a general acute care hospital providing primary and secondary care services. Of which 187 are staffed. Its average census in 1994 was 106. In 1995 was 99. In 1996 was 95 and in 1997 was 77. Both hospitals are underutilized and have had problems attracting specialists to the area. Secondary care is somewhat more complex. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="229"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6047.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The parties entered into a settlement agreement that was eventually incorporated into a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="228"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1443.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allstate Insurance Company.1 Turner was a field claims adjuster for Allstate. Turner was authorized to write settlement checks on be 1 Allstate Insurance Company is an Illinois corporation and is a subsidiary of Allstate Corporation. The other thirteen uncharged checks were considered during sentencing. In this appeal Michael Turner argues that 18 U.S.C. § 1033 is unconstitutional as Congress has exceeded its authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause. Turner avers that neither he nor Allstate Insurance Company are instrumentalities or things in interstate commerce and that his actions were wholly intrastate. His activity is only tangentially related to and did not have a substantial affect on interstate commerce. Affect a company which is involved in interstate commerce. Cl. 3. 2 Turner admitted that he was not authorized to deposit the checks into his account and that by doing so he committed a crime. Turner could have been charged under any number of Illinois statutes relating to theft or deception. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="228"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/12/031664P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Northwest was the eighth largest airline in the United States. Republic was the ninth largest. The merger was sanctioned by the Department of Transportation but was not granted antitrust immunity. Notification of the class was postponed while the district court considered Northwest's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the statute of limitations had run. That there are three reasons why its suit. Though it was filed eleven years after the merger. Midwestern also argues that its action is not barred by laches. Midwestern asserts first that Northwest's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="228"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july97/94-1579.wpd.html">SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE V. AMOCO PROD. CO.<BR></A><BR> Which entities have not obtained ) tribal consent to and federal approval of said explora ) tion. ) for lands located within the exterior boundaries of the ) Southern Ute Indian Reservation and which class ) members have not obtained tribal consent to and ) federal approval of said interests of rights. 2) (1) Our reversal will require the district court to address the defenses asserted by defendants to preclude recovery by the Tribe. 2) a declaratory judgment that Tribal consent is required for CBM extraction. Two issues were identified as fundamental to the resolution of all claims against the Amoco defendants: 1) the determination of CBM ownership. Amoco was designated as representative of the class and. The district court held that CBM ownership was vested unambiguously in the Amoco defendants. Or reach the federal defendants' claims that the Tribe's action was barred by the statute of limitations. It is from these rulings that the Tribe appeals.(2) II. The single issue which is determinative of this appeal is whether the Tribe. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="228"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200704/06-1270a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Joseph P. With her on the brief were Peter D. Demonstrating to the FDA that its drug is in all relevant aspects equivalent to Marinol. This case was filed under seal pursuant to Petitioner/Appellant's request. The Petitioner/Appellant is referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1058.html">MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC, V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/063157P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stanko's primary argument is that the district court1 erred in concluding that The Honorable Joseph Bataillon. Were convicted after a jury trial of multiple counts of violating the FMIA. Stanko sought a declaratory judgment that he was not prohibited from possessing firearms under § 922(g)(1) because his conviction fell within the § 921(a)(20)(A) exclusion. The district court reasoned that: (1) the exclusion was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/973104P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the Chapter 7 Trustee of the corporate debtor. Who was represented by Parry Murray. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the law firm on the basis that Stoebner was collaterally estopped from asserting the claim by virtue of a decision rendered in a related case by the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Our prior panel opinion sets forth many of the underlying operative facts and we will not repeat all of them here. Some of them are necessary for an understanding of the present posture of the case. The debtor corporation was engaged in a Ponzi type fraudulent scheme involving the sale and resale of rare coins to the tune of some $50 million. While the FTC suit was pending. Stoebner was eventually appointed as the Chapter 7 Trustee for the debtor in late May 1992. Which settlement was approved by the district court in a final judgment entered on March 4. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun25/03-30282-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm.1 Appellants prematurely filed a notice of appeal before a final judgment was entered in this case. The first appeal is now moot. Namer and NBC were engaged in the nation wide sale of business franchises. The district court also found that Namer violated the FDCPA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5014.html">R & W FLAMMANN GMBH V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>David M. Trial Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>LTC Douglas K. Sub </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="215"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1261.html">SANDVIK STEEL V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/03-1293a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Glenn D. With him on the brief were Michele Arington. The agreement was presumptively unlawful and PolyGram failed to rebut that presumption. I. Background Here are the facts as found by the Commission in its order and opinion of July 28. Each company was free ultimately to pursue its own marketing strategy and to continue exploiting its earlier Three Tenors concert album without limitation. Which was scheduled for August 1. After first observing (correctly) that the analysis under § 5 of the FTC Act is the same in this case as it would be under § 1 of the Sherman Act. Which begins with the proposition that conduct </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AAEB4F1BB780D3ED8825718000726DA6/$file/0455354.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the case and were on the briefs for the appellants/cross appellees. Argued the case and was on the briefs for the appellees/cross appellants. Were on the briefs for amicus curiae California Board of Equalization. We hold that an importer of goods destined for domestic consumption is not exempt from state excise taxes and administrative searches by federal Customs officials simply because it stores its merchandise in a foreign trade zone. Was licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol. The term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-6444.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are granted in part. A revised opinion is attached. The petitions for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service as required by Fed. The petitions are denied. The principal issues presented by the government's appeal are (1) whether plaintiffs have exhausted the FTCA's notice requirements. (3) whether plaintiffs have satisfied the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Oklahoma law. Trentadue was arrested in California in June 1995 for driving while intoxicated. He was arrested for these parole violations and held in local jails for the next few weeks. Trentadue was placed in the Parole Violator's Unit of the prison where he made several calls to family members and assured them he would not be at the FTC long. He was pronounced dead a few minutes later. <hr> The circumstances surrounding Trentadue's death raise troubling questions. Trentadue's family maintains Trentadue was murdered by prison guards or another inmate. They also allege prison officials were deliberately indifferent to Trentadue's medical needs as guards waited several minutes to open the cell door and cut Trentadue's noose. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/01-6444.htm">01-6444 -- TRENTADUE V. U.S. -- 10/25/2004<BR></A><BR> They primarily contend that the district court committed clear error in finding Trentadue committed suicide in his prison cell and in finding that federal officials did not engage in the intentional destruction of evidence. <p> The principal issues presented by the government's appeal are (1) whether plaintiffs have exhausted the FTCA's notice requirements. (3) whether plaintiffs have satisfied the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Oklahoma law. Trentadue was arrested in California in June 1995 for driving while intoxicated. He was arrested for these parole violations and held in local jails for the next few weeks. <p> On August 18. Trentadue was placed in the Parole Violator's Unit of the prison where he made several calls to family members and assured them he would not be at the FTC long. He was pronounced dead a few minutes later. <p> The circumstances surrounding Trentadue's death raise troubling questions. Trentadue's family maintains Trentadue was murdered by prison guards or another inmate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1277.html">SWISHER INTERNATIONAL V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Peter Buck Feller</U>. With him on the brief were <U>David W. With him on the brief were <U>George W. With him on the brief was <U>Robert . Is the proper basis of jurisdiction for this constitutional challenge to the application of the HMT to exports. The court ruled that a Customs Service decision to deny a refund request based on such a challenge was not a decision subject to protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a) and thus cannot support Court of International Trade jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § . Since under the HMT regulation there is no time limit for filing a request for refund of the HMT. If its denial were protestable. The refund claims in the complaint would not have been dismissable. Given that Swisher had timely filed its protest and the subsequent Court of International Trade suit when the protest was denied. Was the exclusive jurisdictional basis for this suit. The court entered judgment for the United States on all of Swisher s claims that were barred by the two year statute of limitations applicable to that subsection. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200701/06-5059a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the briefs was David G. With her on the brief was Todd S. With her on the brief were Harriet A. With him on the brief was D. Because appellants have produced no evidence of continuing TVA authority over the project. Adjacent to the site are several areas of historic significance. Other Reconstruction era African American communities that have applied for historic status. Or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. In response to which Karst filed an amended complaint adding allegations against all three and asking the court to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3835946F39ECD08E882573460049E265/$file/0515900.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case presents the question of whether the Attorney General may through an adjudicative decision create a strong presumption that a drug trafficking offense resulting in a sentence of less than five years is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/005047.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnson submits that compelling arbitration is precluded by an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3495_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The University of the District of Columbia is a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The exact nature of the violations is unclear. They seem to have included misuse of federal funds. The Association acknowledges that compliance with the subpoena is not burdensome in the sense of imposing heavy costs of identifying. That the documents sought are relevant to the Department's investigation. That the Department is authorized by law to conduct such an investigation. This will impede those investigations because whistleblowers will worry that if they inform to the Association their cover will be blown. This amounts to arguing that a private organization should have the right to impede government investigations because it wants to conduct its own investigations without No. 06 3495 3 hindrance. To state the proposition is almost enough to refute it. Of course there are privileges that can be used to keep information from government agencies and thus impede government investigations. There is no private investigator's privilege. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="208"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021364.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was correct. The mark is registered in Monaco. Are five companies formed and controlled by a French national. Included in this roster are 53 web sites whose domain addresses incorporate some portion of the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="207"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-2.gif" ALT="207"></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-2.gif" ALT="207"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/003076.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The complaint also charges that the individual officers and directors of Mylan are liable for its misconduct because they are control persons within the meaning of section 20 of the 1934 Act. Holding that disclosure of the exclusive supply contracts would not have significantly altered the total mix of information available to the reasonable investor. That therefore the failure to disclose specifically those contracts was not material. The raw materials essential to the manufacture of these two drugs are produced solely by Profarmaco S.r.l. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1087.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Robin H. Of counsel was Michael R. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Chi S. The court overturned the ruling of the United States Customs Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1083.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Michael J. On the brief were James M. Of counsel was Mark B. On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Charles R. Which is known as the Byrd Amendment. Customs determined that Cathedral and Root were ineligible for those distributions because the two companies had not made timely requests for payment. The National Candle Association filed an antidumping petition alleging that the importation of petroleum wax candles from China was causing and threatening to cause material injury to the domestic candle industry. The questionnaires were marked </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="205"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1547.html">NSK V. KOYO<BR></A><BR> Of counsel were <U>Matthew P. With him on the brief were <U>Peter O. Of counsel was <U>Elizabeth C. With him on the brief was <U>Donald J. Of counsel was <U>Christine H. With her on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Stephen J. With him on the brief was <U>Merritt R. With him on the brief were <U>Terence P. Of counsel were <U>Wesley K. The <U>Remand Results</U> were subsequently affirmed by the Court of International Trade in their entirety. <U>See</U> <U>NSK</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9284_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs tell a compelling story and are not the first to tell it. Similar allegations have appeared in a separate class action. In complaints filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-5166.htm">01-5166 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. SKYBIZ.COM INC. -- 01/30/2003<BR></A><BR> The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9284_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs tell a compelling story and are not the first to tell it. Similar allegations have appeared in a separate class action. In complaints filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1326.html">B-WEST IMPORTS, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1192.html">DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Harvey Karlovac</u>.</p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> . Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Karen P. For amicus curiae DaimlerChrysler Corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Michael T. DaimlerChrysler applied the final two coatings a color coat and a clear coat (collectively known as the top coats).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because it believed that the painting process was incidental to assembly. Customs found that DaimlerChrysler s application of the top coats did not qualify for duty free treatment because it was appearance related and therefore not incidental to assembly.<span style='m </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/31F0472AE8A769E588257013007DAC1B/$file/0235971nographic.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking damages for the constitutional rights that were alleged to be violated by the emergency order. Four of the Appellants also filed individual claims in which they alleged that their constitutional rights were infringed by Seattle police officers in the course of the conference. We determine that the emergency order was a constitutional time. We also determine that there are genuine issues of material fact whether the emergency order was constitutional as applied to certain Appellants. Emily Maloney were also named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They are not parties to this appeal. 1 5952 MENOTTI v. CITY OF SEATTLE All persons who were arrested by the City of Seattle and its police agents or its affiliated police agents on December 1 and 2. Pursuant to the defendants' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="195"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001488.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a complaint alleging that Esfand Baragosh was a controlling person of Noble Wealth Data Information Services and several related companies (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="194"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0022p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Rogers would affirm the summary judgment against plaintiffs who have purchased indirectly from defendant. Judge Katz would find that all violations of the Act are properly analyzed under §§ 2(d) and (e) and not § 2(a). Summary judgment is therefore REVERSED on Count I as to all plaintiffs and on Count II as to those plaintiffs who purchase directly from defendant and AFFIRMED on Count II as to those plaintiffs who do not purchase directly from defendant. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings. Holding that eight out of ten of the plaintiff vendors did not have standing because they did not purchase cigarettes directly from Philip Morris. No plaintiffs proved that they were in competition with the other retailers. That the remaining plaintiffs who have standing are in competition with the other retailers.2 I. The Robinson Patman Act The Robinson Patman Act was passed in 1936 as an amendment to the Clayton Act.3 The Clayton Act is an antitrust law that primarily protected against </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="194"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1212.html">TARGET V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="194"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6234.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Persaud was housed temporarily for nearly two months at the Federal Transfer Center at Oklahoma City. That defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs during this time. Persaud's objections to the magistrate's report and (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) In the caption to this case. Butt is referred as Ms. We will do the same. <hr> recommendation. Summary judgment is appropriate only where there exists no genuine issue of material fact. The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Persaud's Bivens claims against Defendants Butt and Goforth allege that both defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Butt was the associate warden at FTC OKC and Dr. Goforth was the Clinical Director of the medical clinic at OKC. Goforth argued below that they were entitled to summary judgment because Mr. Persaud failed to bring forth sufficient evidence that they were directly or personally involved in any decisions about Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="194"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2304.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Dwyer & Collora were on brief. We affirm the district court's finding that the law interferes with the foreign affairs power of the federal government and is thus unconstitutional. We further find that the Massachusetts Burma Law violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal sanctions against Burma. There is one matter on which the parties are agreed: human rights conditions in Burma are deplorable. Final determination as to whether a company is in fact </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1210.html">TORRINGTON CO. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2251.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0383p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The new subsidiaries were separate enterprises with separate books and records. The adjustments included those attributable to the facilities that were transferred to the new subsidiaries. The first issue is how Hospital Corporation may calculate the amount to exclude from income because a portion of accounts receivable will not be collected. It may use an older formula in which the ratio is obtained by dividing the same six year average of bad accounts by the sum of year end accounts receivable. The second issue is whether the Hospital Corporation subsidiaries that still operated some hospitals could still get the statutory benefit available to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1014.html">PRINCESS CRUISES V. US<BR></A><BR> Of counsel on the brief was <U>Lisa A. With him on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Richard McManus</U>. Is unconstitutional as applied to commercial passengers on cruise ships and that the Arriving Passenger Fee (". Was improperly assessed on certain of the appellee s cruises. <U>See</U> <U>Princess Cruises v. In HMT covered ports if the originating and terminating ports of the cruise were HMT exempt. The Court of International Trade held that the HMT was unconstitutional and did not reach the issue of the application of the tax to layovers or stopovers. The Court of International Trade went on to hold that the APF was not due for passengers on cruises that begin in an exempt port and arrive directly in the United States. This appeal was submitted for our decision following oral argument on October 5. Is not unconstitutional and is severable from the unconstitutional application of the tax to exports. We hold that the HMT is properly assessed on stopovers or layovers at non exempt ports. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/051588P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Policy states: [State Farm] will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of . . . personal injury or advertising injury to which this insurance applies. . . . .... [State Farm] will have the right and duty to defend any claim or suit seeking damages payable under this policy even though the allegations of the suit may be groundless. Finding that the claims against the NRCCUA were not for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064292p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will. Will order the reinstatement of Broadcom's state and common law claims. Mobile Wireless Telephony and the UMTS Standard Mobile wireless telephony is the general term for describing the technology and equipment used in the operation of cellular telephones. It is essential that all components involved in this transmission of information be able to communicate seamlessly with one another. Industry wide standards are necessary to ensure their interoperability. Standards are determined privately by industry groups known as standards determining organizations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="190"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1443.html">DUTY FREE V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1431.html">U.S. V. HITACHI AMERICA, LTD.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was David M. With him on the brief was Yoav M. Of counsel was Stuart M. With him on the brief were David G. Which would have authorized far higher penalties than mere negligent non reporting or false reporting. It is clear. Was not shown here. The appeal and the two cross appeals were submitted for our decision following oral argument on January 4. Which were imported into the United States pursuant to a contract its subsidiary HAL had with the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F3398DF0F5B7CAC288256D5E00785FB2/$file/0136172.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Save Our Valley argues that the project will have the effect of discriminating against Rainier Valley residents based on race in violation of a Department of Transportation regulation. The primary question before us is whether that Department of Transportation regulation creates an individual federal right that can be enforced under the Civil Rights Act. I The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1209.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Gregory Husisian. With her on the brief were Stephan E. On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John D. With him on the brief were Richard O. BACKGROUND Enriched uranium fuel rods are used by the utility industry to generate nuclear power. LEU is used to fabricate uranium rods. Many utilities in the United States contract to buy uranium from a third party seller and then contract to have that uranium enriched by a uranium enricher. Those determinations focused on two main issues: (1) whether SWU contracts were contracts for the sale of goods and not services and. (2) whether domestic utilities or foreign enrichers were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1725a.html">TRANS UN CORP V. FTC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952662P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (TGM) is a Minnesota corporation formerly engaged in the business of selling rare coins for investment. his wife. Blodgett Diane Blodgett is was the founder. By operating as a Ponzi scheme in which investors were lured into purchasing rare coins by the expectation of future profits upon the resale of those coins through TGM. Investors who made a profit on resale did so only because their coins were resold to other investors at even more inflated prices. 1 In January. While the FTC Action was pending. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1689.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They probably think their names and addresses will not be released to a firm of private lawyers seeking fuel to propel a possible class action lawsuit. So it is with this case which deals with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="186"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1210.html">U.S. SHOE CORP. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="185"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1343.html">FUJITSU V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="185"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1269.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John D. With him on the brief was Ronald M. (Pacific Coast) are not affiliated entities under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)(E). The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1224.html">DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE V. WILLIAM HOGARTH<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Kumar Vaswani</u>.</p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> . Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas L. Director.<span s </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-7163a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Catherine E. With him on the brief were Arthur M. Circuit Judge: This appeal presents for the first time in this circuit the threshold question of when interlocu tory review of a class certification decision is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). We conclude that interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f) typically is appropriate in three circumstances: (1) when there is a death knell situation for either the plaintiff or defendant that is independent of the merits of the underlying claims. Coupled with a class certification decision by the district court that is questionable. That is likely to evade end of the case review. (3) when the district court's class certifi cation decision is manifestly erroneous. I. The class action now pending in the district court was preceded by two lawsuits brought by the FTC and several States' Attorneys General against Mylan that were ultimately consolidated and ended in a settlement. Which argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdic tion because the FTC was not authorized to seek either monetary relief or a permanent injunction in an antitrust case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/051588P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Policy states: [State Farm] will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of . . . personal injury or advertising injury to which this insurance applies. . . . .... [State Farm] will have the right and duty to defend any claim or suit seeking damages payable under this policy even though the allegations of the suit may be groundless. Finding that the claims against the NRCCUA were not for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/033917P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It was successful and enabled the Blodgetts to lead a lavish lifestyle. Blodgett as he was charged with and convicted of several counts of fraud. His wife was not charged with any criminal wrongdoing. Blodgett and the FTC reached a settlement which was memorialized in a consent order signed March 4. A receiver was appointed to liquidate the assets in both estates and disburse the money. The litigation estate was used to pay litigation expenses for the defense of actual or reasonably anticipated governmental enforcement actions against the Blodgetts. The settlement estate was used to pay claims of defrauded customers of the business. The litigation estate was established with $300. The remaining proceeds from the 2 liquidation of the Coin Fund were transferred to the settlement estate. The Florida condominium and Simbari painting each became parts of the bankruptcy estate and were not returned to the settlement estate. The trustee prepared and issued to the shareholders a notice indicating each respective share of the loss amount and the fact such loss was deductible only to the extent of shareholder basis in the corporation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1002.html">HAGGAR APPAREL CO., V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>David E. With him on the brief were <u>David . Also on the brief were <u>Joseph I. International Trade Field Office.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/02/961325P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was in the habit of selling single coins to multiple customers. A temporary restraining order (TRO) was later entered in federal district A consent order. Vartian was given control over TGM's property and was charged with liquidating the assets to cover the attorney fees of TGM and Blodgett and to defray Blodgett's living expenses. Blodgett was eventually convicted of twenty two counts Plaintiffs claim they received no notice of the coin liquidation and that the FTC and its counsel Rushkoff knew. Or should have known. The FTC and Rushkoff informed the receiver that such claims were meritless and that liquidation should continue. property rights. Their motion was denied as untimely. then sued the receiver in federal district court. dismissed based on official immunity. been involved in TGM's bankruptcy proceedings. That action was In addition. Plaintiffs have Still displeased. The discretionary function exception 3 to the FTCA prohibits the maintenance of claims which are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5404a.html">INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA V. WALLACE DEWITT<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1044.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Gregory S. Of counsel was Meredith A. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Ada E. With him on the brief was Stephen A. Of counsel was Joseph W. A. Countervailing Duties and Subsidies If the production of goods abroad is subsidized by a foreign government. The goal of these duties is to protect American 1 Specifically. A particular batch of imported goods is referred to as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-5021.htm">00-5021 -- CASSARA V. DAC SERVICES INC. -- 01/17/2002<BR></A><BR> 1681g(a)(3)(A)(I) (2000).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-5404a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were John C. Glaze were on the brief for amici curiae Southern Ute Indian Tribe and Jicarilla Apache Nation. Lee Ellen Helfrich was on the brief for amicus curiae California State Controller. With him on the brief was Nancy L. With him on the brief was David T. Quinn Jr. were on the brief for amicus curiae National Mining Association. Federal and Indian gas leases are no exception. The federal government is not your standard oil and gas lessor. The regulations have historically called for calculation of royalty on the basis of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-8187.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></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-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/05-1177a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Patrick Gallagher and Angel M. With him on the brief was Carol S. Nathanson were on the brief for intervenors in support of respondents. The agreements are designed to bring the facilities into compliance with the permitting and reporting requirements of three environmental statutes. Petitioners argue that the agreements are rules disguised as enforcement actions. We dismiss the petitions for review because exercises of EPA's enforcement discretion are not reviewable by this court. I. Animal feeding operations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1138.html">TRANSCOM, INC., V. US<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-8187.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015305.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are not subject to the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act. The question of whether the United States' claims brought pursuant to PSRPA are subject to the Limitation Act is one of first impression. If the limitation is granted. The vessel owner subsequently is found liable. It was entitled to all damages due to injuries to resources in the National Park as a result of the grounding.3 The relevant provisions of the PSRPA include: 16 U.S.C. § 19jj 1(a): [A]ny person who destroys. Or injures any park system resource is liable to the United States for the response costs and damages resulting from such destruction. As limitation is based on the post accident value of the vessel and its freight. Especially in cases in which the vessel sinks or the freight is lost. Or injury to the same extent as a person is liable under subsection (a) of this section. 16 U.S.C. § 19jj(c): </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/11/053873P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A group of consumers and organizations from Minnesota who have purchased prescription drugs in the United States from the defendant drug companies in the United States. The gravamen of the complaint was that the defendants unlawfully conspired to suppress the importation of Canadian prescription drugs for personal use. Including: (1) requiring Canadian pharmacies to certify that they were not selling prescription drugs to persons whom the pharmacies knew or should have known were taking the drugs outside the country. (3) creating </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0435p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1117.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Victor S. Of counsel was Matthew R. On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was James K. With him on the brief were John J. Resulted in a determination that no countervailable subsidies were provided to the production or exportation of certain hot rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand. Steel challenges the Court of International Trade's holdings (1) affirming Commerce's determination that SSI's debt restructuring was not specific. Commerce initiated an investigation to assess whether countervailable subsidies were provided to the Thai steel industry. Commerce ultimately concluded that countervailable subsidies were being conferred on hot rolled steel from Thailand and assigned a countervailing duty rate on SSI. Two of Commerce's determinations supporting its conclusion are relevant to this appeal. Commerce determined that the entire amount of SSI's import duty exemptions were countervailable export subsidies. This determination was based on its finding that RTG did not have a system or procedure in place that was reasonable and effective for the purpose of confirming which inputs were consumed in the production of exported products and in what amounts those inputs were consumed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1109.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Tina Potuto Kimble. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Jeffrey Kahn. The pertinent statutory scheme operates as follows: A group of producers of a particular agricultural commodity who feel they have been adversely affected by imports of agricultural products are entitled to file a petition with the Secretary of Agriculture seeking certification of eligibility for adjustment assistance. The Secretary is required to certify the commodity producers for adjustment assistance if the Secretary determines (1) that the national average price for the particular commodity in the most recent marketing year is less than 80 percent of the national average price for that commodity for the five previous years and (2) that increases in imports of that commodity or of goods directly competitive with it have contributed importantly to the price decline. 19 U.S.C. § 2401a(c). In the event a producer group is certified. Any individual producer covered by that group certification is eligible for certain non monetary benefits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1077.html">OY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/01-4229.htm">01-4229 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 11/04/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1965.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judgment was therefore\ entered in favor of both Altria and Philip Morris. Explained that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-1308a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-4099.htm">99-4099 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. MT. OLYMPUS FINANCIAL -- 04/17/2000<BR></A><BR> Olympus is a subprime lender extending credit to higher risk borrowers. The Hormans are the corporation's principals. The inquiry was made to determine whether Olympus was in violation of the Truth in Lending Act. Authority to investigate such possible violations is vested in the commission by virtue of 15 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1126.html">TORRINGTON V. US<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1002.html">ORLEANS INTERNATIONAL, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Kevin J. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0370p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Tax Court held that neither the transfer of the property from LOF to LOF Glass nor the change in ownership of LOF Glass was a disposition of Section 38 property under 26 U.S.C. § 47. I. The facts are not disputed. Petitioner was engaged in the fluid power and plastics businesses and the manufacture of glass. The glass business was referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1158p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon in this case principally to perform one of our most delicate duties determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting a federal law. At issue is the power of Congress to criminalize </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1048.html">TA CHEN STAINLESS STEEL PIPE, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1158.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Terence P. Of counsel were Lane S. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Ada E. GmbH (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="174"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5137.html">JANOWSKY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr95/93-6508.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GUTHRIE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Guthrie challenges the validity of his prosecution under the Lacey Act for violation of Alabama regulations that make it unlawful to sell alligator snapping turtles without a permit: he contends that the Lacey Act is an unconstitutional delegation of federal legislative authority. That the state regulations that formed the basis for his prosecution were promulgated under state laws that violate the Alabama Constitution. We will address the facts and procedural history for each species separately. The factual information that follows is drawn primarily from the briefs. Which was adopted by the district court at the sentencing hearing.<p> A. It was only good for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr95/93-6508.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GUTHRIE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Guthrie challenges the validity of his prosecution under the Lacey Act for violation of Alabama regulations that make it unlawful to sell alligator snapping turtles without a permit: he contends that the Lacey Act is an unconstitutional delegation of federal legislative authority. That the state regulations that formed the basis for his prosecution were promulgated under state laws that violate the Alabama Constitution. We will address the facts and procedural history for each species separately. The factual information that follows is drawn primarily from the briefs. Which was adopted by the district court at the sentencing hearing.<p> A. It was only good for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1497.html">KOYO SEIKO V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1127.html">SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1396.html">ALLOY PIPING PRODUCTS, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Walter J. With her on the brief was <u>Jeffrey S. With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Of counsel on the brief were <u>John D. Int l Trade 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Kanzen argues that Commerce was required to correct an alleged error in its final determination.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We hold that Commerce s refusal to correct the alleged error was not arbitrary and capricious. Because (1) Kanzen itself was the source of the error. (3) there was no showing that the error was or would have been apparent to Commerce before it issued the final determination.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We therefore affirm the decision of the Court of International Trade.</p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text align:center'>BACKGROUND</p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text align:center'><o:p> . Line height:200%'>I</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%'><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>Commerce is required to impose antidumping duties on foreign merchandise [that] is being. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7119D19EAA9717AD88256FA50005D633/$file/0355575.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that the Joneses have stated a viable complaint. Among the documents was one entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3FF641D5AD0664458825710000837C6A/$file/0430249.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: In this appeal we are confronted with a question of first impression regarding the scope of Congress's power under the Foreign Commerce Clause.1 At issue is whether Congress We commend both counsel for their excellent and comprehensive briefing on this novel issue. 1 UNITED STATES v. Which was concluded at the Second World Congress Against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children. Cases involving the reach of the Foreign Commerce Clause vis a vis congressional authority to regulate our citizens' conduct abroad are few and far between. CLARK commerce </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/972221P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Arkansas General Assembly's goal in passing the PPA was to ensure </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1181.html">TORRINGTON ET AL. V. THE U.S. ET AL.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1084.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Paul C. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Mykhaylo A. Was void ab initio as to PAM because the domestic petitioners failed to serve PAM as required by 19 C.F.R. § 351.303(f)(3)(ii). The Court of International Trade reasoned that strict compliance with section 351.303(f)(3)(ii) is required and that Commerce may not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4AE8C752D9F8836788256CAE00581170/$file/0070014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. 578 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. The Problem of Stormwater Runoff Stormwater runoff is one of the most significant sources of water pollution in the nation. SediThe </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021442.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is the second appeal by James and Rebecca Deaton. Who were sued by the government under the Clean Water Act (sometimes. The Corps asserts jurisdiction because the Deatons' wetlands are adjacent to. The Deatons' main argument is that the Corps has no authority over the roadside ditch. This regulation represents a reasonable interpretation of the CWA that is entitled to deference. Since 1989 the Deatons have owned an undeveloped. We will call it the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5156a.html">MCDONNELL DGLS CORP V. RICE DONALD<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1484.html">HUAIYIN FOREIGN TRADE CORP V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> For plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>John C. For defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Robert D. Senior Trial Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Arthur D. ) determined that a foreign producer of freshwater crawfish tail meat was subject to a dumping margin applicable to all similar producers from the People's Republic of China (". Alleging that freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC was sold in the United States at less than fair value.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China. The Department adopted in this proceeding a presumption that the PRC was a nonmarket economy (". Huaiyin 5 indicated that it was applying for a separate company specific margin.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> 62 Fed. 348.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Huaiyin 5 was among the companies able to show an absence of state control and thus received a company specific 91.5 percent <u>ad valorem</u> duty margin.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Id.</u> at 41. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3744.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2002 OE No. 02 1268 was submitted. That appeal is untimely and is therefore dismissed. It is rare for a judge to enter summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a fraud case. In this case the evidence was so overwhelming as to justify the district court in dispensing with a trial. There is no need to describe the evidence. Which is detailed in two published opinions by the district court. So far as the issue of fraud is concerned. They would be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021736.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It does not present the question of whether mountaintop coal mining is useful. Therefore that the Corps' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1019.html">FLORAL TRADE COUNCIL V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055428p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We disagree and will reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts of the underlying RICO suit are straightforward. Weiss was employed by Tucker Anthony Sutro as an investment banker. He was insured by First Unum through a group insurance policy with Tucker Anthony Sutro. The policy provided long term disability benefits when the insured is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115148op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The Court hereby substitutes the following opinion in place of the opinion which was issued on March 21. The defendants' main argument on appeal is that the district court erred in determining that the Honduran laws that served as the underlying basis of their convictions were valid and enforceable. The defendants contend that the Honduran laws were invalid. There was no violation of foreign law upon which to base their convictions.1 The defendants' challenge to the validity of the Honduran laws requires us to undertake our own foreign law determination. Our task is complicated by conflicting representations from Honduran officials regarding the validity of the Honduran laws. Shortly after the defendants were convicted. If the lobsters were not imported. If the lobsters were brought into the United States legally and were not criminally derived property. We must decide whether our courts are bound by a foreign government's new representations regarding the validity of its laws when its new representations are issued only postconviction and directly contravene its original position upon which the government and our courts relied and the jury acted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115148.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants' main argument on appeal is that the district court erred in determining that the Honduran laws that served as the underlying basis of their convictions were valid and enforceable. The defendants contend that the Honduran laws were invalid. There was no violation of foreign law upon which to base their convictions.1 The defendants' challenge to the validity of the Honduran laws requires us to undertake our own foreign law determination. Our task is complicated by conflicting representations from Honduran officials regarding the validity of the Honduran laws. Shortly after the defendants were convicted. We must decide whether our courts are bound by a foreign government's new representations regarding the validity of its laws when The Lacey Act prohibits the importation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2OThfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7698_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cross appeals by certain plaintiffs from so much of the district court's order as The present caption in these consolidated appeals lists as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/00A79345E9F2318188256EED0049B206/$file/0216472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the challenged agreement does not have a direct. Tomatoes had a very short shelf life if they were picked from 11012 UNITED STATES v. Consumers are unable to access vineripened tomatoes for much of the year. Most United States consumers are relegated to eating foreign tomatoes that are picked before they are ripe. So they will still be fresh after shipping. Tomatoes picked in this fashion have a poor flavor compared to vine ripened tomatoes. The contract provided that LSL would have the exclusive rights to the North American market. Which is the UNITED STATES v. Hazera may engage in such activities only if all of the following conditions are met: (A) the subject tomatoes do not have or involve long shelf life qualities which are included in LSL's proprietary rights. The Restrictive Clause was amended to allow Hazera to sell other seeds (e.g. The government alleged that the Restrictive Clause is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1996/96a1334p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Commissioner has asked us to review a ruling which allowed a United States taxpayer to deduct interest owed to a related foreign payee when it was accrued rather than paid. Reg. 1.267(a) 3 is invalid to the extent that it requires accrual basis taxpayers to defer deductions for interest owed to a related foreign payee until the year the interest is paid. Also at issue is whether. Reg. 1.267(a) 3 is valid. Reg. 1.267(a) 3 is a valid exercise of the powers delegated to the Secretary under I.R.C. 267(a)(3). We will reverse the decision of the Tax Court. I. The following facts were stipulated by the parties before the United States Tax Court. The taxpayer is an affiliated group of corporations of which Tate and Lyle. (TLI) is the common parent. Is a wholly owned subsidiary. Both TLI and RSI are United States corporations and were included on the taxpayer's consolidated federal income tax returns for the tax years at issue. Tate and Lyle plc (PLC) is a United Kingdom corporation which indirectly owns 100% of TLI and RSI. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-1253a.html">AIR TRANS ASSN AMER V. DOT<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/21B6E339D6053D8388256C840006686E/$file/0171584.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These commissions were for royalty income subsidiaries earned from the international distribution of master copies of Microsoft computer software. The Commissioner disallowed the deductions because it concluded that master copies of computer software were not deductible </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1569r.html">MEAD CORP. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were David W. Of counsel on the brief were Allan L. This court reverses.<p> I.<p> <p> At issue are five models of Mead's day planners (model nos. 47192. Mead argued that (1) the articles were not diaries. (2) the articles were not bound. The Court of International Trade broadly defined </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-7209b.html">DISTRICT INTOWN PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V. D.C.<BR></A><BR> Christensen argued the cause for appellants. </p> <p>With him on the briefs was Stacey L. With him on the </p> <p>brief were Jo Anne Robinson. Nelson were on the brief for amicus </p> <p>curiae The National Trust for Historic Preservation and D.C. </p> <p>Preservation League.</p> <p>Before: Edwards. All nine lots were declared </p> <p>historic landmarks. </p> <p>finding that the construction was incompatible with the prop </p> <p>erty's landmark status. The District Court found that there was no categori </p> <p> . The property as it was </p> <p>originally purchased in 1961 and as it was held for 27 years </p> <p>prior to the 1988 subdivision. When the proper </p> <p>ty is viewed as a single parcel. There is no doubt that it has </p> <p>not been rendered valueless. Even if each subdivided </p> <p>parcel is considered separately. The record </p> <p>here does not show that District Intown's investment backed </p> <p>expectations were disappointed. This is not surprising. Be </p> <p>cause District Intown could not have had any reasonable </p> <p>investment backed expectations of development given the </p> <p>background regulatory structure at the time of subdivision. </p> <p>Accordingly. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/98-7209a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Stacey L. With him on the brief were Jo Anne Robinson. Nelson were on the brief for amicus curiae The National Trust for Historic Preservation and D.C. All nine lots were declared historic landmarks. Finding that the construction was incompatible with the prop erty's landmark status. The District Court found that there was no categori cal taking under Lucas. The property as it was originally purchased in 1961 and as it was held for 27 years prior to the 1988 subdivision. When the proper ty is viewed as a single parcel. There is no doubt that it has not been rendered valueless. Even if each subdivided parcel is considered separately. The record here does not show that District Intown's investment backed expectations were disappointed. This is not surprising. Be cause District Intown could not have had any reasonable investment backed expectations of development given the background regulatory structure at the time of subdivision. The property was known as Cathedral Mansions South and consisted of an apartment building and adjacent landscaped lawns. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-7209a.html">DISTRICT INTOWN PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V. D.C.<BR></A><BR> Christensen argued the cause for appellants. </p> <p>With him on the briefs was Stacey L. With him on the </p> <p>brief were Jo Anne Robinson. Nelson were on the brief for amicus </p> <p>curiae The National Trust for Historic Preservation and D.C. </p> <p>Preservation League.</p> <p>Before: Edwards. All nine lots were declared </p> <p>historic landmarks. </p> <p>finding that the construction was incompatible with the prop </p> <p>erty's landmark status. The District Court found that there was no categori </p> <p> . The property as it was </p> <p>originally purchased in 1961 and as it was held for 27 years </p> <p>prior to the 1988 subdivision. When the proper </p> <p>ty is viewed as a single parcel. There is no doubt that it has </p> <p>not been rendered valueless. Even if each subdivided </p> <p>parcel is considered separately. The record </p> <p>here does not show that District Intown's investment backed </p> <p>expectations were disappointed. This is not surprising. Be </p> <p>cause District Intown could not have had any reasonable </p> <p>investment backed expectations of development given the </p> <p>background regulatory structure at the time of subdivision. </p> <p>Accordingly. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/98-7209b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Stacey L. With him on the brief were Jo Anne Robinson. Nelson were on the brief for amicus curiae The National Trust for Historic Preservation and D.C. All nine lots were declared historic landmarks. Finding that the construction was incompatible with the prop erty's landmark status. The District Court found that there was no categori cal taking under Lucas. The property as it was originally purchased in 1961 and as it was held for 27 years prior to the 1988 subdivision. When the proper ty is viewed as a single parcel. There is no doubt that it has not been rendered valueless. Even if each subdivided parcel is considered separately. The record here does not show that District Intown's investment backed expectations were disappointed. This is not surprising. Be cause District Intown could not have had any reasonable investment backed expectations of development given the background regulatory structure at the time of subdivision. The property was known as Cathedral Mansions South and consisted of an apartment building and adjacent landscaped lawns. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0831990EEA712D45882573470051BA3C/$file/0574592.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2321 and 2342(5). I. A The STB is a successor to the Interstate Commerce Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314326.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or that was produced using materials that have been mailed. Definitions of § 2252A's terms are contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2256. The section was amended just days before Maxwell's trial. The amendments are of no moment in this case. § 2256. Data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image. Its case relied on establishing that the images were produced by materials that did. The first three grounds are insufficient to warrant reversal. The fourth ground is that the application of § 2252A(a)(5)(B) to the facts of his case amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of the Commerce Clause. (B) such visual depiction is. Or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Or (D) such visual depiction is advertised. Or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. (9) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0101p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As the issues raised in this appeal are matters of first impression among the courts of appeals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1334.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Peabody & Brown were on briefs. Kohler Co. were on briefs. This is an appeal from the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants Kohler Company and Robern. There were two basic claims before the trial court: that the Falling Water faucet </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1141.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3077enbanc.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Theodore B. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Donald E. With him on the brief were Jeffrey G. Of counsel on the brief were Ronald L. With him on the brief were Martha B. Because the VEOA is subject to equitable tolling and Kirkendall is entitled to a hearing on his USERRA claim. Was chosen to fill the position. All of which were denied. The board has no authority to decide whether DoL should have waived the 60 day deadline. The board affirmed the AJ's decision that the VEOA claim was precluded for failure to timely file. The board held that Kirkendall's assertion that he was not selected based on his status as a disabled veteran was cognizable. That Kirkendall had offered no proof that his veteran status was a substantial or motivating factor in his nonselection. Review was denied. Cir. 2006) (per curiam order). 05 3077 3 The order granting en banc review asked the parties to brief three issues: (1) Is the 15 day period for filing appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(1)(B) subject to equitable tolling? (2) Is the 60 day period for filing a claim with the Secretary of Labor set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(2)(A) subject to equitable tolling? (3) Are all veterans who allege a USERRA violation entitled to a hearing under 5 U.S.C. § 7701? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/012062P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. (3) are unconstitutionally vague in the use of the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0773n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His life is none the richer for it. He asked to have his cell phone activated. Was told that it had been stolen and could not be activated. FTC security guards were called. Where he was booked for misdemeanor criminal trespass. He was later acquitted of the trespass charge. Summary judgment is proper </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/96-5354a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ugol were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Bean were on the brief for amici curiae Center for Marine Conservation. Hawkins were on the brief for amicus curiae Pacific Legal Foundation. Kamenar were on the brief for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation. III was on the brief for amicus curiae American Land Foundation. Which is located only in California. An insect that is native to the San Bernardino area of California. The habitat of which is located entirely within an eight mile radius in southwestern San Bernardino County and northwestern Riverside County. The district court held that application of section 9(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act to the Fly is a valid exercise of Congress' power pursuant to the Commerce Clause. We affirm the district court's decision to grant the government's motion for summary judgment.1 1 Summary judgment is appropriate when all of the submissions </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5041a.html">A L PHARMA INC V. SHALALA, DONNA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1269.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. I The underlying facts are simple and undisputed. The bond thus secures against revenue loss for what is. Although Customs regulations require an importer to update its continuous bond application within 30 days </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/99-4243.htm">99-4243 -- PETERSON V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION -- 04/17/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Debtor plaintiff Jay Peterson appeals from a district court order dismissing these consolidated adversary proceedings.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-1005b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Katherine E. With him on the brief were John C. I Hazardous waste combustors (HWCs) are facilities such as incinerators. Is a trade association that includes manufacturers of Portland cement that utilize hazardous waste as an alternative fuel in some of their kilns. A permit program in which permitting authorities either EPA or states that have hazardous waste 3 programs authorized by the agency apply those national standards to particular facilities. The national standards applicable to the petitioner are authorized by RCRA § 3004. The burning of hazardous waste is considered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1223.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Matthew P. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John D. With him on the brief were Terence P. NSK Ltd. and NSK Corp. (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2308.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are known also as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1025.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel were Mark S. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Chi S. Which was issued in response to an earlier protest by Motorola concerning different circuits. Agreeing with Customs that all eight models were properly classified under subheading 8536.30.80. That statute obligates Customs to publish for notice and comment any interpretive ruling or decision that would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313639.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alvin Smith was convicted of one count of producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)1 and one count of possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).2 The court sentenced him to 188 months in prison and 60 months of supervised release. This court held that purely intrastate possession of child pornography was not converted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1547.html">BESTFOODS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1076.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Maria E. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Sheryl A. The United States Customs Service was renamed the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Was not a protestable decision under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200517164.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is the question. Are the Alabama sturgeon and the shovelnose sturgeon separate species? Which one observer has noted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1670p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Profession or trade </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1799p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal primarily presents an issue that divides sister Courts of Appeals and is of first impression in our court namely. Dismissed the remaining defamation action on the ground that the alleged defamatory statements were not sufficiently directed toward the plaintiff so that a jury could reasonably conclude that they referred to him. Our standard of reviewing the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss is plenary. Shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law. Are to leave regulation and taxation of the insurance business to the states and to ensure that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/564D4A580B7317BE88256CB0000D6EA2/$file/0270986.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Petitioners1 challenge the Department of Transportation's The petitioners in this case are Public Citizen. The combined effect of which will permit Mexico domiciled motor carriers to operate within the United States beyond the current limited border zones. The Department of Transportation decided that there was no need for further environmental analysis. It is useful to examine the legal and regulatory context in which they were promulgated. We will refer to them (as well as the Petitioners Intervenors. Our existing governmental institutions are not adequate to deal with the growing environmental problems and crises the Nation faces. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1402.html">WILLIAM O. SCHISM V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/96-7073.man.html">SAMMY'S OF MOBILE, LTD. V. CITY OF MOBILE (5/8/1998, NO. 96-7073)<BR></A><BR> Encourages undesirable behavior and is not in the interest of the public health. The Candy Store were licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption and offered topless female dancing. The complaint alleges that the ordinance is unenforceable under the doctrine of equitable estoppel and that it violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the ordinance is unenforceable under the doctrine of res judicata.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/96-7073.man.html">SAMMY'S OF MOBILE, LTD. V. CITY OF MOBILE (5/8/1998, NO. 96-7073)<BR></A><BR> Encourages undesirable behavior and is not in the interest of the public health. The Candy Store were licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption and offered topless female dancing. The complaint alleges that the ordinance is unenforceable under the doctrine of equitable estoppel and that it violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the ordinance is unenforceable under the doctrine of res judicata.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96311E1BD528E6CC88256DA2005952F9/$file/0070014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are vacated. They are replaced by the Opinion and Dissent filed today. The petitions for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The clerk is instructed not to accept for filing any new petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc in this case. 13774 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. EPA preserved The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1566.html">FABIL MANUFACTURING CO V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were <u>David . Of counsel on the brief was <u>Chi S. Was latently defective and worthless. Fabil was not required to make that showing. That after importation Fabil discovered that the jackets were ". Were unsaleable and completely worthless.". Attached to the motion was the affidavit of Robert Hammer. Which was ". Tests of the manufacturing samples submitted to Fabil showed that the product was colorfast. That the jackets were not machine washable because the Coca Cola logos were not colorfast and after machine washing the logos disintegrated and their colors ran. The merchandise was returned to Fabil.". Returns established that the subject merchandise was never fit for sale.". Fabil was forced to dispose of the returned merchandise at a total loss.". Some was donated to three specified charities and the ". Remainder of the returned merchandise was discarded without compensation.". Fabil was forced into insolvency and out of business.". </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1092b.html">ACTION CHILD TV V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/001586.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P. 23(f) is whether plaintiffs' securities fraud claims satisfy the requirements for class certification under Fed. We will affirm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. P. 23 to provide for interlocutory appeal by permission of the court of appeals.1 Recognizing that denying or granting class certification is often the defining moment in class actions (for it may sound the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1085.html">EARTH ISLAND V. SECRETARY OF STATE<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/95a0975p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. We will vacate the district court's judgment and remand so that the district court may determine whether the regulations can be upheld despite their discriminatory effect.[fn1] I. The facts of this case are generally not in dispute.[fn2] The necessary factual background concerns New Jersey's waste management system and Atlantic Coast's activities. Or was in the process of closing. Was at the forefront of both the problem and the solution. A number of additional counties were forced by the continuing capacity shortages to make disposal arrangements with out of state facilities. New Jersey waste was banned. New Jersey's existing statutory and regulatory waste management system is the result of attempts to respond to this crisis.[fn3] The two major statutory provisions of New Jersey's solid waste management system are the Solid Waste Management Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0975p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. We will vacate the district court's judgment and remand so that the district court may determine whether the regulations can be upheld despite their discriminatory effect.[fn1] I. The facts of this case are generally not in dispute.[fn2] The necessary factual background concerns New Jersey's waste management system and Atlantic Coast's activities. Or was in the process of closing. Was at the forefront of both the problem and the solution. A number of additional counties were forced by the continuing capacity shortages to make disposal arrangements with out of state facilities. New Jersey waste was banned. New Jersey's existing statutory and regulatory waste management system is the result of attempts to respond to this crisis.[fn3] The two major statutory provisions of New Jersey's solid waste management system are the Solid Waste Management Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948607.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are former students Honorable George C. The appellees are: the Secretary of the United States Department the Student Loan Higher Education of Education. Assistance Corporation (GHEAC). and the Georgia Higher Education This lawsuit is based upon the appellants' contention that the school fraudulently induced them to enroll in the school and to enter into federally guaranteed student loan contracts. Appellants were left with several thousand dollars in student loan debt. Financed their attendance at the school.1 The GSL program was designed to encourage private lenders to provide educational loans to students. The federal government provides private commercial lenders with a guaranty that a student's educational loan will be repaid even if the student defaults. The institution of higher education ordinarily is not a party to the loan agreement and has no role in the transaction other than to provide the lender with a statement of the student's estimated cost of attendance and financial assistance needs. Provides the private lender with a guaranty that the loan will be repaid even if the student defaults. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1348.html">CANDLE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ET AL. V. U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Joshua A. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Deputy Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Ellen C. DC.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Lucius B. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Terence P. Muench Kreuzer Candle Company.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Edward M. Although it was listed among OTHER U.S. Antidumping duties were collected.<span style='mso spacerun:yes' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/94-8607.opa.html">BARTELS V. ALABAMA COMMERCIAL COLLEGE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bartels v. Are former students of the now defunct Alabama Commercial College that did business as Riley Training Institute of Savannah. The appellees are: the Secretary of the United States Department of Education. This lawsuit is based upon the appellants' contention that the school fraudulently induced them to enroll in the school and to enter into federally guaranteed student loan contracts. Appellants were left with several thousand dollars in student loan debt. </i> financed their attendance at the school.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-4606.ord.html">FLORIDA BRECKENRIDGE, INC. V. SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (5/11/1999, NO. 98-4606)<BR></A><BR> After receiving notice that Solvay believed that Breckenridge was infringing on its trade rights. Were requested to file supplemental briefs. Arguing that Solvay's appeal was frivolous. A company merely had to file a New Drug Application ('NDA') or an Abbreviated New Drug Application ('ANDA') and prove that their product was safe. The FDCA was amended to require proof that the product was effective as well as safe. The companies producing these drugs were given a two year window to submit revisions of their NDAs to prove their efficacy. Groups of drugs with approved NDAs were evaluated by an independent panel. The evidence was submitted to the FDA. A notice was published in the federal register and a supplemental NDA would be approved for these drugs. All drugs are new drugs and therefore require an approved NDA or ANDA before marketing unless they are generally recognized among experts as safe and effective for their labeled use (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-4606.ord.html">FLORIDA BRECKENRIDGE, INC. V. SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (5/11/1999, NO. 98-4606)<BR></A><BR> After receiving notice that Solvay believed that Breckenridge was infringing on its trade rights. Were requested to file supplemental briefs. Arguing that Solvay's appeal was frivolous. A company merely had to file a New Drug Application ('NDA') or an Abbreviated New Drug Application ('ANDA') and prove that their product was safe. The FDCA was amended to require proof that the product was effective as well as safe. The companies producing these drugs were given a two year window to submit revisions of their NDAs to prove their efficacy. Groups of drugs with approved NDAs were evaluated by an independent panel. The evidence was submitted to the FDA. A notice was published in the federal register and a supplemental NDA would be approved for these drugs. All drugs are new drugs and therefore require an approved NDA or ANDA before marketing unless they are generally recognized among experts as safe and effective for their labeled use (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/94-8607.opa.html">BARTELS V. ALABAMA COMMERCIAL COLLEGE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bartels v. Are former students of the now defunct Alabama Commercial College that did business as Riley Training Institute of Savannah. The appellees are: the Secretary of the United States Department of Education. This lawsuit is based upon the appellants' contention that the school fraudulently induced them to enroll in the school and to enter into federally guaranteed student loan contracts. Appellants were left with several thousand dollars in student loan debt. </i> financed their attendance at the school.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/971913P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a tax refund dispute. Ida Raye Chernin is a party to this action only because joint federal tax returns were filed by the couple during the year in question. 2 1 that refunds are due for taxes paid on income reported in 1982 on two alternative grounds: either because (1) in 1982. The United States maintains that if the taxpayer is entitled to a refund for funds transferred to secure an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2001.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Dwyer & Collora were on brief. Alleging that price fixing activities which took place entirely in Japan are prosecutable because they were intended to have. Did in fact have. Because the issue of successor liability is not before us. We treat NPI as if it were the sole defendant and as if it. Were alleged to have committed the acts described in the indictment. 2 fix the price of thermal fax paper throughout North America. NPI and other manufacturers who were privy to the scheme purportedly accomplished their objective by selling the paper in Japan to unaffiliated trading houses on condition that the latter charge specified (inflated) prices for the paper when they resold it in North America. NPI monitored the paper trail and confirmed that the prices charged to end users were those that it had arranged. ANALYSIS We begin and end with the overriding legal question.2 Because this question is one of statutory construction. Is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0098p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Appellant Daahir Caseer was convicted on May 15. Was illegal. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that. Caseer knew that khat was a controlled substance. Yemen have chewed or made tea from the stems of the native khat shrub (Catha edulis). Which is known to have stimulant properties. Khat is often consumed in social settings. Khat is legal in many parts of East Africa. Khat is illegal in the United States because it contains cathinone. Caseer explained to Eldridge that he could not make the trip himself because of visa issues.1 Caseer assured Eldridge that khat was an agricultural product and. Khat was no stronger than caffeine. Caseer was awaiting approval of his application for permanent residency status. Customs Service's practice at that time was to levy $500.00 fines for small amounts of khat intended for personal use if federal or local authorities decided not to prosecute. 2 1 No. 02 2268 United States v. Caseer Page 3 Amsterdam was unrelated to the khat and was bound for Somalia and that the khat was a gift from a Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5066.html">BANKERS TRUST NEW YORK CORPORATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Joel V. With him on the brief were <u>Loretta C. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/03-5161a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1347.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. DECISION This is the second time this case has been before us. This agency was known as the United States ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/00-14434.opn.html">FLORIDA E. COAST RY. CO. V. CITY OF W. PALM BEACH (9/27/2001, NO. 00-14434)<BR></A><BR> Is not pre empted by the ICCTA.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1274.html">NOVOSTEEL SA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/031438p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Injunctive relief and a declaration that they were entitled to a retroac tive reimbursement. The District Court denied all relief and dismissed the workers' complaint. 1 We conclude that the workers are entitled to an order: (1) declaring that Pennsylvania's waiver policy violated the Trade Act. Circuit Judge: The individual plaintiffs in this case are industrial workers who reside and worked in western Pennsylvania. Allowances and other benefits to workers who have lost their jobs as a result of competition from imports. Michele Aikens and John Whitcomb ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-14434.opn.html">FLORIDA E. COAST RY. CO. V. CITY OF W. PALM BEACH (9/27/2001, NO. 00-14434)<BR></A><BR> Is not pre empted by the ICCTA.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014434.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is not pre empted by the ICCTA. Appellate jurisdiction is under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Situated on this property are an office building. Rinker was FEC's largest customer. Rinker is in the business of supplying building material including </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3442.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Francesca Alvaro. With her on the brief were Neil A.G. Garcia had not proven that her actions were involuntary and therefore dismissed Ms. I An adverse action is an official action taken by a federal agency and imposed on an employee. Such official action is by statute clearly within the jurisdiction of the Board. An aggrieved employee can appeal such an action to the Board for a determination as to whether the action was proper. 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d) (2000). It deals with what is known as a constructive adverse action. Although a resignation is ostensibly a voluntary separation from employment. It is possible that an employee can be coerced into resigning by actions of the employing agency. Such an involuntary adverse action is known as a constructive adverse action. Garcia alleges that the constructive adverse action was prompted by a violation of her rights to be free from discrimination in the workplace. It is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/96-5156a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tuttle was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Butler were on the joint brief. Perlman was on the brief for appellee Mormac Marine Transport. The agency's interpretation was unobjec tionable. I. Because building ships and manning them in the United States was and remains more expensive than in other coun tries. Because vessels built with the aid of the CDS program would have an unfair advantage if allowed to compete directly with the unsubsidized Jones Act ships in domestic trade. That if the vessel is operated in the domestic trade on any of the above enumerated services. He will pay annually to the Secretary of Transportation that proportion of one twenty fifth of the construction differential subsidy paid for such vessel as the gross revenue derived from the domestic trade bears to the stops on bona fide foreign voyages. Which is established by statute as twenty years for tankers and twenty five years for vessels carrying dry goods. Whenever the Secretary may determine that such transfer is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1336a.html">BLOUNT WILLIAM B. V. SEC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/336C069DE1B87AE588256DFA00010810/$file/0256592.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called on to decide whether the Iranian trade embargo. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Masood Kalantari is a producer of television programs and a promoter of Iranian cultural events in the United States. He is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1069.html">BESTFOODS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were George W. With him on the brief were Frank W. Of counsel on the brief were David Hamill. Most of the peanut slurry that is used to make peanut butter at the Little Rock plant is made in the United States. Between 10 and 40 percent of the peanut slurry is made in Canada from peanuts grown elsewhere.<p> In January 1993. Did not require it to mark its peanut butter to indicate that it was made in part in Canada. The marking statute is not triggered simply because some of the components or ingredients of an article made in the United States are of foreign origin. Is essentially the same as when it was imported. The imported product loses its identity and is transformed into a new product having </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5007.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were Peter D. (Forest Products) appeals the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims holding that it did not have jurisdiction over Forest Products's claim for a refund of antidumping and countervailing duties paid to the United States Customs and Border Protection. Because we agree with the Court of Federal Claims that it does not have jurisdiction over Forest Products's claim. Was entered under Subheading 4407.10.0068 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Was entered under HTSUS subheading 4421.90.9740. Both entries were allegedly subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Forest Products asserted that it was paying these duties </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/85E12F7AAC2A420688256FB70000CDB6/$file/0315695.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We further conclude that NASD rules approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission have preemptive force over conflicting state law. Section 6 of the California Constitution requires the [California Judicial Council] to improve the administration of justice by . . . [a]dopting rules for court administration and rules of practice and procedure that are not inconsistent with statute . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1288.html">SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <U>Irving A. With him on the brief were <U>David G. Arguing that these goods were ". The appeal was submitted for our decision following oral argument on October 6. Were not limited to equipment entered in those years and could have included considerable costs for equipment imported in earlier. These costs were not proven to be related with adequate specificity to particular entries as required by section 158.12. Which is only one of several methods of appraisal used by Customs. This transaction value was determined using the price actually paid by Samsung when it purchased the equipment from the manufacturer. The Products exported to the United States are occasionally in need of the inspection. Certain electronic equipment like that imported in the subject entries was found to contain latent defects. If the defects were determined to have not been caused by the consumer and to be covered by the warranty. The defects were repaired and the expenditures were considered repair costs in Samsung s accounting system. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992279.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. That Maryland's liquor regulatory scheme is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/97-5801.man.html">GOODLIN V. MEDTRONIC, INC. (2/18/1999, NO. 97-5801)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that her Medtronic cardiac pacemaker lead was defective in a way that gave rise to two causes of action under Florida common law. The pacemaker lead is a wire that transmits the heartbeat steadying electrical impulse from the pulse generator to the heart. The MDA classifies devices that either </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/97-5801.man.html">GOODLIN V. MEDTRONIC, INC. (2/18/1999, NO. 97-5801)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that her Medtronic cardiac pacemaker lead was defective in a way that gave rise to two causes of action under Florida common law. The pacemaker lead is a wire that transmits the heartbeat steadying electrical impulse from the pulse generator to the heart. The MDA classifies devices that either </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511682.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The key issue presented in this petition for review is whether the Federal Communications Commission exceeded its authority. Which is the exclusive province of federal regulation. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A). Which are regulable by the states. We dismiss the petition of the Vermont Board because it is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200010/99-1531a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were William T. Jr. were on the brief for amicus curiae in support of petitioner. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief were Thomas F. Qwest contends that the Order is contrary to s 1905 of the Trade Secrets Act. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of U S West. That the Commission has failed to explain how its Order is consistent with its policy regarding the treatment of confiden tial information. The Region al Bell Operating Companies ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2274.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Oestreicher</SPAN> were on brief for appellant/cross appellee.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3272.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Lori J. Also on the brief was Peter D. Of counsel were David M. This is an appeal from the Merit System Protection Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1139.html">ZENITH V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1401.html">TRANSCOM INC. V. USA<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was John M. With him on the brief were Frank W. Of counsel were Stephen J. With him on the brief were Terence P. Transcom points out that several of the Chinese companies from which it obtained tapered roller bearings were not named in the notices of initiation for those three administrative reviews. It was improper for the administrative reviews to result in an increase in the antidumping duty on those companies' products. The state controlled entity China National Machinery and Equipment Import and Export Corporation (CMEC) was the sole Chinese exporter of tapered roller bearings. All tapered roller bearings that were imported from China into the United States were sourced. An </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1212r.html">FAG ITALIA S.P.A V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant FAG Bearings Corporation and FAG Italia S.p.A.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1436.html">GRUPO V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/06-5113a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Mark D. Shriver III were on the brief for amicus curiae National Treasury Employees Union in support of appellees. Our limited judicial task is to determine whether the Department of Defense has acted consistently with its statutory authority in promulgating certain regulations. The primary legal question we must decide is whether the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 authorizes DoD to curtail collective bargaining rights that DoD's civilian employees otherwise possess under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. We will refer only to DoD and not also to OPM.). The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-9512.htm">01-9512 -- GEMAN V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION -- 07/07/2003<BR></A><BR> Geman was a registered broker dealer and investment adviser. He was also the chief executive officer of a firm called Portfolio Management Consultants. Geman was found to have violated several provisions of the securities laws. The SEC affirmed all of the findings of violations but reduced the sanctions imposed.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1268.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel was Michael K. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Yelena Slepak. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). The company believed that the cars were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/97-6731.man.html">HAWTHORNE V. MAC ADJUSTMENT, INC. (5/11/1998, NO. 97-6731)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff appellant Carrie Hawthorne claims that Mac Adjustment violated her rights that are protected by the FDCPA. We decline Hawthorne's invitation and AFFIRM the ruling of the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Hawthorne was involved in an accident. Who was damaged in the amount of $2. If you did not have insurance and wish to resolve this matter voluntarily. Send your check for the full amount of the claims by return mail.</P> <P> In the event that you are without insurance and you cannot remit payment immediately. The claim will be assumed to be valid. If you notify us in writing within 30 days that the claim or any portion thereof is disputed. We will obtain verification of the claim or a copy of a judgment against you and a copy of verification or judgment will be mailed to you. We will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor. This is an attempt to collect a claim and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.</P> <P> Averring that the claim referred to in the Mac Adjustment letter had expired under Alabama law on December 7. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/97-6731.man.html">HAWTHORNE V. MAC ADJUSTMENT, INC. (5/11/1998, NO. 97-6731)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff appellant Carrie Hawthorne claims that Mac Adjustment violated her rights that are protected by the FDCPA. We decline Hawthorne's invitation and AFFIRM the ruling of the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Hawthorne was involved in an accident. Who was damaged in the amount of $2. If you did not have insurance and wish to resolve this matter voluntarily. Send your check for the full amount of the claims by return mail.</P> <P> In the event that you are without insurance and you cannot remit payment immediately. The claim will be assumed to be valid. If you notify us in writing within 30 days that the claim or any portion thereof is disputed. We will obtain verification of the claim or a copy of a judgment against you and a copy of verification or judgment will be mailed to you. We will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor. This is an attempt to collect a claim and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.</P> <P> Averring that the claim referred to in the Mac Adjustment letter had expired under Alabama law on December 7. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></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-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-6298.htm">02-6298 -- GRIGGS V. U.S. -- 10/17/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Steven M. Because plaintiff is challenging the execution of his sentence. We further conclude that plaintiff was required to file his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar97/96-8130.opa.html">LEWIS V. BRUNSWICK CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lewis v. Who died after she fell or was thrown from a boat and then struck by a Brunswick engine propeller. The Brunswick engine involved in their daughter's death was defective because it lacked a propeller guard. The district court held that the Lewises' claims were preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act. Whether the Lewises' claims are preempted by the Act.<p> As we will explain in Part VII. The preemption clause and the savings clause in the Act provide contradictory indications of congressional intent relating to whether the Lewises' claims are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that they are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that those claims are expressly saved from preemption either. Our resolution of the question of preemption in this case turns on whether the Lewises' claims are impliedly preempted by the Act. We hold that they are. Kathryn Lewis was spending the day with her boyfriend's family in a boat on Strom Thurmond Lake in Georgia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968130.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who died after she fell or was thrown from a boat and then struck by a Brunswick engine propeller. The Brunswick engine involved in their daughter's death was defective because it lacked a propeller guard. The district court held that the Lewises' claims were preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act. Whether the Lewises' claims are preempted by the Act. As we will explain in Part VII. The preemption clause and the savings clause in the Act provide contradictory indications of congressional intent relating to whether the Lewises' claims are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that they are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that those claims are expressly saved from preemption either. Our resolution of the question of preemption in this case turns on whether the Lewises' claims are impliedly preempted by the Act. those claims conflict with the We hold that they are. Kathryn Lewis was spending the day with her boyfriend's family in a boat on Strom Thurmond Lake in Georgia. While the boat was pulling Kathryn's boyfriend on an inner tube. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar97/96-8130.opa.html">LEWIS V. BRUNSWICK CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lewis v. Who died after she fell or was thrown from a boat and then struck by a Brunswick engine propeller. The Brunswick engine involved in their daughter's death was defective because it lacked a propeller guard. The district court held that the Lewises' claims were preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act. Whether the Lewises' claims are preempted by the Act.<p> As we will explain in Part VII. The preemption clause and the savings clause in the Act provide contradictory indications of congressional intent relating to whether the Lewises' claims are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that they are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that those claims are expressly saved from preemption either. Our resolution of the question of preemption in this case turns on whether the Lewises' claims are impliedly preempted by the Act. We hold that they are. Kathryn Lewis was spending the day with her boyfriend's family in a boat on Strom Thurmond Lake in Georgia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-4229.htm">01-4229 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 07/08/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1169b.html">ALLI COMMTY MEDIA V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1682.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The common drive for financial returns now brings us a dispute over rights to the income stream of the fastest growing ophthalmic drug in history. <P> The entire range of claims articulated by plaintiff appellant was dismissed by the district court on summary judgment. We will begin our analysis.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1435.html">MIDWEST INDUSTRIES V. KARAVAN TRAILERS, INC.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were H. Of counsel was Curtis A. Of counsel on the brief was Don Cayen. Have joined Part II A of this opinion.<p> BRYSON. Holding that they are barred by federal patent law. We hold that we will apply Federal Circuit law in determining whether patent law conflicts with other federal statutes or preempts state law causes of action. Those decisions in which we have held that regional circuit law governs in resolving such issues. As is typically true of watercraft trailers. Midwest also alleged that Karavan's conduct violated Midwest's rights under the Iowa common law of trademarks.<p> Midwest is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Would interfere with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM3NzAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3770-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of certain Connecticut banking laws against Wachovia Mortgage on the ground that the state laws are preempted by the National Bank Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1485.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Stuart P. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Kemba Eneas. Of counsel were John D. Of counsel were Michael J. L.P. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1116.html">AK STEEL V. US<BR></A><BR> With them on the brief was <U>Michael H. With him on the brief were <U>David M. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Stephen J. With him on the brief were <U>Julie . By the revaluation provisions of the Tax Exemption and Reduction Control Act (TERCL) Article 56 2.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/01-5373a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3169.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The myriad provisions in the federal criminal code are justified. We are required in this case to determine whether Congress has authority under its power </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B235B372AEA6EF188256CEE0080CC3B/$file/0150495.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McCoy challenges the section of the federal statute that prohibits the possession of child pornography made with materials that have traveled in interstate commerce. We hold that 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) is unconstitutional as applied to simple intrastate possession of a visual depiction (or depictions) that has not been mailed. Or transported interstate and is not intended for interstate distribution. Were or are commercial producers of child pornography. At the time charges were filed against the McCoys. Kala were spending an evening at home. Her two older children were placed with foster care parents. Although only Kala was alleged to have played any role in the event that led to the arrest of her mother and stepfather. 1 UNITED STATES v. This pose was captured in one photograph. Rhonda was also charged with one count of manufacturing child pornography using materials transported in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).3 Rhonda and Jonathan filed It is. District attorney declined to file charges). 3 Although § 2251 is generally referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/024597p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Based on its determination that Horn's claims against TCI are preempted by the express preemption provision in the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/95-6133.wpd.html">HAROLDS STORES, INC. V. DILLARD DEPT. STORES, INC.<BR></A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1601.html">LES BROWNLEE, V. DYNCORP<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>David M. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Craig S. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Richard O. </o:p></p> <p class=MsoBodyText style='text indent:.5in'>This case presents two significant issues.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The first is whether the appeal by Les Brownlee. Entitlement decision is timely.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We hold that it is.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The mere fact that the government could have appealed the Board s <st1:date Year= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></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-1.gif" ALT="148"></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-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0244n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were evicted from their residence by Columbus Code Enforcement Officers after the officers discovered that the two women kept 33 dogs and 4 birds on or about the premises in unsanitary conditions that. The district court again concluded that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The jury found that the plaintiffs' constitutional rights were not violated. Judgment was subsequently entered in favor of the city. Factual background Sell and Cuckler are two elderly women who live together in a one story. Sell was 65 years old and her mother. Was 83. The two women are avid animal lovers who had joint ownership of some 33 dogs and 4 birds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1042.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief was Guy S. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Charles Steuart. With him on the brief were Curtis W. Because the record contains no evidence that Dixon was substantially prejudiced by the United States Customs and Border Protection's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1360.html">THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES V. WILLIAM J. CLINTON<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel were <u>Mark A. Also of counsel were <u>Violanda Botet</u>. Again to identify Italy as a nation for which there is reason to believe its nationals or vessels are conducting large scale driftnet fishing. The judgment is affirmed.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0102p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was induced to embark on such a course of action by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1199.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Covington & Burling were on brief. L.L.P. were on brief. The Statute Regulation is not a stranger to the tobacco industry. Existing state law is not much more intrusive. Only Minnesota and Texas have required any reporting of tobacco ingredients. When Section 307B was enacted as a means of regulating the tobacco industry. Pro consumer bill that will give people all the information they need to make educated decisions about what they put in their bodies </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0840p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An administrative Declaratory Order interpreting the Act are preempted by ERISA. We find the Act and its regulations are not preempted because they confer broad authority that may be implemented in a manner consistent with ERISA. Therefore we will affirm the judgment of the district court striking the Declaratory Order. The Prevailing Wage Act The purpose of the Prevailing Wage Act </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1110.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was John H. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Richard McManus. The four appellants in this case are Carnival Cruise Lines. Carnival operates passenger cruise ships and therefore is subject to the Harbor Maintenance Tax ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1073.html">TUNG MUNG DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD, ET AL. V. US, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Ltd. and plaintiff Yieh United Steel Corporation in 03 1073.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas J. Argued for defendant appellee the United States in 03 1073 and 03 1095.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the briefs was <u>David M. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the briefs were <u>John D. Et al. in 03 1073 and plaintiffs appellants in 03 1095.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the briefs were <u>David A. Line height:200%'>This is a consolidated appeal by Allegheny Ludlum Corp. Provide no ground for setting aside Commerce s most recent decisions because Commerce s most recent decisions were not compelled by the remand orders.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoFootnoteText style='text indent:.5in. Line height:200%'>Another question presented by Commerce s recent decisions is whether Commerce must assess duties on all exported merchandise of a foreign producer at a single weighted average rate (calculated to include middleman dumping as well as the producer s own dumping).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We uphold Commerce s decision not to use a single weighted average rate and affirm the Court of International Trade.</p> <h2 style='line height </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1413a.html">WKPLC HLTH SFTY CNCL V. DOL<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1266.html">NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Daniel J. Argued for defendant appellant United States.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David M. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>John D. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert E. <u>Ellen Schneider</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </sp </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1556.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was William DeVinney. On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John D. Because substantial evidence supports Commerce's determination that it has in the past consistently liquidated unreviewed entries from an unrelated reseller at the cash deposit rate when the manufacturer has no knowledge that the subject merchandise is ultimately destined for the United States. After determining that certain imported AFBs were being sold below fair value in the United States to the detriment of domestic industry. Presumably all interested parties were satisfied with the previously published cash deposit rates for assessment purposes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CD6343F0008C15FC882571A200744061/$file/0417496.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On slip Opinion page 5645. We explained that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DCD8811CDE4275E088256E5A00707CB6/$file/9915654.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue for decision is whether the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe (Tribe) has authority to regulate logging by a nonIndian on fee land that she owns. Congress determined that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1B4485DF1F7D251288256AC40003E5EB/$file/9915654.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue for decision is whether the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe (Tribe) has authority to regulate logging by a nonIndian on fee land that she owns. Congress determined that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1477.html">GOODMAN V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1027.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Latturner</SPAN> were on brief. Hayden</SPAN> were on brief. These matches were not exact. Deborah Barnes was a customer of BankBoston. Your accounts will transfer to the Fleet accounts that are most similar to your existing BankBoston accounts. Everything will happen automatically. So you won't have to do a thing.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1888.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lockhart LLP</U> were on brief for petitioner.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/97-5316b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is Ordered by the court that the petition be denied and that the slip opinion filed herein on March 23. Delete the two sentences following the sentence stating </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B9961F8896B700688257203005698B1/$file/0436136.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm the district court's decision that Bertram Sacks has standing to challenge the ban on travel and that the travel ban regulation was validly promulgated. To demonstrate a concrete and imminent likelihood that he will be penalized for violations of the restriction on medical donations. The twelve years of United States and United Nations sanctions were a dire time for Iraqi civilians. Sacks and other Voices members traveled to Iraq repeatedly while the sanctions were in effect. It is necessary to review the history of the Iraqi sanctions regime. Available at http://www.unicef.org/publications/index 4439.html (reviewing data on increased infant and child mortality during the sanctions regime period and concluding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-1098.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/446E2D9485E7701988256CEE00818509/$file/0255495.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Los Angeles County Superior Court ordered and adjudged that Hasbun was in arrears to his ex wife in the amount of $62. The County of Los Angeles and Experian ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/01-1258a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1406.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom DiMento & Sullivan was on brief for appellant Richard G. Was on brief for appellee. Kalp and Richard Kayne were charged with twenty nine counts of mail fraud. The defendants were sentenced to 36 months imprisonment. (2) that certain evidence was improperly admitted. (3) that the evidence submitted below was not sufficient to sustain the convictions. Were just looking for a stable investment. The value of a coin is dependent upon its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEzNzQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1374-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Honorable Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was originally assigned to sit by designation on this panel but recused himself before oral argument. This case is decided by the two remaining members of the panel pursuant to Section 0.14(b) of the Local Rules. 2 * B.D. Futures Inc. is a futures commission merchant ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993856.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which have been consolidated before the district court for pretrial purposes. Which is in the business of purchasing such delinquent claims from municipalities in several states. Appendix references are to the appendix filed in Nos. 99 3858 and 99 3859. 4 September 1996. The City and the School District entered into a Purchase Agreement whereby existing claims and liens for unpaid taxes and sewer charges were assigned to NTF.2 App. at 517. Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-1483.htm">96-1483 -- Z.J. GIFTS D-2 V. CITY OF AURORA -- 2/10/1998<BR></A><BR> The district court held that the regulation was a content based restriction of speech as applied to Z.J. Gifts' remaining claims for relief were dismissed as moot. The city appealed. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200610/03-1456a.pdf">O:\2005-2006 TERM\03-20-06 SITTING\03-1456 AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL V. DOT\OPINION\AMERICAN_CHEMISTRYFINALV2.WPD<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs was Nicholas J. Ackerman were on the brief for intervenors Utility Solid Waste Activities Group. On the brief were Peter D. Transporters challenge a Department of Transportation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1187p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It seeks to have the County's flow control plan declared unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause. Pennsylvania was no exception. Methods less protective of the environment generally have lower capital and operating costs. Most waste disposal facilities were privately owned and operated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></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-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4302_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service adopted the position that any such deductions had to be taken when the interest payments were actually made. We will sketch the relevant tax code sections and regulations1 because these provisions supply not only the frame. Corporations with gross receipts of more than $5 million are accrual basis taxpayers that must use the accrual method of accounting. A taxpayer must include income and deductions in the taxable year in which the income or liability is fixed and can be determined with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054594p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is a regulation that would exempt from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-9518.htm">98-9518 -- U.S. WEST INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM. -- 08/18/1999<BR></A><BR> 222 and are impermissible because they violate the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. It is seductive for us to view this as just another case of reviewing agency action. This case is a harbinger of difficulties encountered in this age of exploding information. Administrative interpretation is at the heart of our responsibility. Which was enacted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. At issue here are the FCC's regulations clarifying the privacy requirements for CPNI.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIyNjQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2264-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are unlicensed street vendors of clothing painted with grafitti. (2) its conclusion that remand is unnecessary to determine whether § 20 453 is a reasonable time. Because we hold that New York City's licensing requirement is a valid. We conclude that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1487.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1192.html">U.S. V. HANOVER INSURANCE<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1277.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hurwitz & McAloon were on brief for plaintiffs. Were on brief for defendants. Arena & Cayer and Ernest Gellhorn were on brief for intervenor. No firm or person is allowed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0831p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lawrence Seidman ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1697.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1476.html">NATIONAL CUSTOMS BROKERS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/84DE37D15EF98DC888256D8000518932/$file/0135666.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These new restrictions have been hotly contested in both state and federal courts. Although the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1230.html">INLAND STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Of counsel were <U>Michael H. With him on the brief was <U>David M. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Stephen J. Of counsel were <U>Bernd G. With him on the brief were <U>M. Usinor is a French company with domestic and international steel producing facilities. Usinor was obligated under the PACS instruments to pay to the French government the face value of the PACS. Usinor was obligated to pay interest at a rate of 0.1%. Usinor was to make principal payments and supplementary interest payments from its profits in amounts to be set by the French Minister of Economy. <U>See</U> Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Steel Products From France. The FIS instruments were bonds issued to the French government s Steel Intervention Fund (<U>i.e.</U>. Usinor was obligated under the FIS instruments to pay the FIS interest at a rate of 0.1% plus an additional percentage dependent upon Usinor s profits. The first two of which were to be made by the French government. If the instruments were debt on issuance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1135.html">BMW MANUFACTURING CORP V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <U>David R. With him on the brief were <U>David M. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Richard McManus</U>. We affirm.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1427.html">PESQUERA MARES AUSTRALES LTDA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FB39C82C3DD30DD588256D8A007D7B88/$file/0215202.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Butler are commercial tour boat operators conducting passenger tours from Hanalei Bay to the Na Pali coast on Kauai. The plaintiffs have held at least two types of licenses in the recent past: federal and state. Therefore is preempted by. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1061.html">VIRAJ GROUP, LTD V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>David M. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>John D. DC.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Christine Sohar</u>. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F847B86BCD2AB49488256DFE007B89AE/$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-1.gif" ALT="141"></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-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1330.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel on the brief was Michael K. With him on the brief were Robert D. Of counsel on the brief was Richard McManus. The appeal was submitted for our decision after oral argument on October 4. Is barred by the retroactivity doctrine. We also affirm the trial court's award of prejudgment interest to the government because the government was entitled to receive Arriving Passenger Fee ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1490.html">KAJARIA IRON V. US<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043848p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked who owns the founder's surname. We are also asked whether defendants the founder's grandson and his business have engaged in trademark infringement. Because we conclude that plaintiff has not met its burden of showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. Although the personal aspects of this dispute are not material to our resolution of this appeal. The history of the Doebler family businesses is critical to this matter. A case that is now before us for a second time. 4 A. Other family members were involved in the business as well. All three families were represented on Hybrids' board of directors as well. Jones and Camerer are officers. The Partnership's original functions were ultimately split between Partnership. Doebler III had ties to all three entities: he was partnered with his father in the Partnership and remains an owner of the successor LLC. He is co owner of Farmland. He was but no longer is a shareholder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-1342a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Zoll were on the joint brief. Circuit Judge: The Military Toxics Project seeks review of a final rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency establishing the circumstances in which military munitions are deemed hazardous waste for purposes of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1325b.html">NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION V. EPA<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Arline </P> <P>M. Pew argued the cause for petitioner Sierra Club. </P> <P>With him on the briefs was Howard I. With him on the brief were </P> <P>Lois J. Bumpers was on the brief for amicus curiae </P> <P>the American Portland Cement Alliance.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1167p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). Our review of these issues of standing and statutory construction is plenary. 1530 n.19 (3d Cir. 1993) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/99-1325a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Arline M. With him on the briefs was Howard I. With him on the brief were Lois J. Bumpers was on the brief for amicus curiae the American Portland Cement Alliance. We (1) reject its argument that EPA's use of particulate matter as a surrogate for non volatile metal hazardous air pollutants vio lates the Clean Air Act and is arbitrary and capricious. Hazardous air pollutants are known as HAPs. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1325a.html">NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION V. EPA<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Arline </p> <p>M. Pew argued the cause for petitioner Sierra Club. </p> <p>With him on the briefs was Howard I. With him on the brief were </p> <p>Lois J. Bumpers was on the brief for amicus curiae </p> <p>the American Portland Cement Alliance.</p> <p>Before: Edwards. We (1) </p> <p>reject its argument that EPA's use of particulate matter as a </p> <p>surrogate for non volatile metal hazardous air pollutants vio </p> <p>lates the Clean Air Act and is arbitrary and capricious. Hazardous air pollutants are known as HAPs.</p> <p>A ". Is any stationary source that emits ten </p> <p>tons per year or more of any single HAP or twenty five </p> <p>tons per year or more of any combination of HAPs. Determines is achievable ... through ap </p> <p>plication of measures. These stringency </p> <p>requirements differ depending on whether a source is ". New sources are defined as ". The construction or modification of which is com </p> <p>menced after the publication of regulations (or. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200103/99-1325b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Arline M. With him on the briefs was Howard I. With him on the brief were Lois J. Bumpers was on the brief for amicus curiae the American Portland Cement Alliance. We (1) reject its argument that EPA's use of particulate matter as a surrogate for non volatile metal hazardous air pollutants vio lates the Clean Air Act and is arbitrary and capricious. Hazardous air pollutants are known as HAPs. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0168FFB46E51AC548825718F00493302/$file/0356621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both these ordinances and Santa Monica's administrative interpretation of them have changed substantially. Appellants' persistent urging and Santa Monica's willingness to change its regulations have together produced a transformation in the applicable permitting scheme that to the credit of all par SANTA MONICA FOOD v. We hold that Santa Monica's Community Events Ordinance is. Is not constitutionally sound and cannot be enforced. The facial challenges to other ordinances either are moot or fail on the merits. We are not to be understood as having reviewed or approved aspects of the ordinances or implementing regulations not here challenged. We have endeavored throughout to be quite specific about the limited nature of the challenges to which we respond. 2 Santa Monica has requested that we take judicial notice of six documents: Staff Report. Santa Monica submits that each document is a certified public record. The first four documents are on file with the City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica. The remainder can be accessed at Santa Monica's official website found at www.santa monica.org/ccs/events and are on file with the Open Space Management Division of the Community and Cultural Services Department of the City of Santa Monica. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-7095.html">NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF VETERANS' ADVOCATES V. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS<BR></A><BR> Argued for petitioner Disabled American Veterans.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/704CB7B026F8745188256C1B00599DC5/$file/0017082.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Arizona is home to what is considered by many hunters to be some of the best deer and elk hunting in the world. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972693P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. & Subsidiaries is permissible. I. BACKGROUND The parties have stipulated the relevant facts. Was the parent company of a group of affiliated corporations. The Taxpayer's principal place of business was in Bentonville. The Taxpayer's inventory system is commonly revered as the finest in the retail industry. 2 3 The Honorable David Laro. Kuhn's and Edwards were subsidiaries of the parent and Sam's was a division of the parent. We will use the name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0128p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While Dismas does have standing under the notice and comment requirements for informal rulemaking contained in § 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E84BB06CA720555882572A600811EB3/$file/0571894.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: This is an appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court upholding a tax deficiency determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1561p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nissan rejoins that we have appellate jurisdiction under § 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982238.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because disputed facts remain as to whether the seller's prices were the result of a good faith attempt to meet a competitor's prices. I. Hoover Color Corporation is one of several primary distributors of Bayferrox. Where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce. Where such commodities are sold for use. Only if Bayer did not match the price within 14 days did Rockwood have the option of purchasing from the alternate producer. The prices paid by each distributor were based on the volume purchased the previous year. The lower prices offered to its larger competitors were not functionally available to it even if the same prices were theoretically available to all distributors. Bayer was building a large manufacturing plant 3 in New Martinsville. Section 2(b) provides: [N]othing herein contained shall prevent a seller rebutting the prima facie case thus made by showing that his lower price or the furnishing of services or facilities to any purchaser or purchasers was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0082p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eighteen full service wholesalers who are also direct distributors for defendant R.J. Are full service distributors serving grocery and convenience stores and other retail outlets in a multi state region. All of the plaintiffs are direct distributors of defendant RJR. Cigarettes are divided into four price categories or tiers. Cigarettes are manufactured by defendant RJR (Camel and Winston cigarettes). Second tier and third tier cigarettes are also produced by the major manufacturers. Their prices are substantially lower than first tier cigarettes. Fourth tier brands are produced by smaller manufacturers (including Liggett and Commonwealth) and sell at prices somewhat lower than third tier brands. Non premium brands are collectively classified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/05-5009a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200412/03-1182a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Larry F. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. The regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1186.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel on the brief was Thomas J. With him on the brief were Jeffrey J. With him on the brief was Lara E. With her on the brief was Bruce Vignery. Of counsel on the brief was Michael Schuster. With him on the brief was Roy H. With him on the brief were William E. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1612.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Edward N. These shipments were erroneously classified in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A04DDA4E68E732188256DA2005B2375/$file/0270303.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although we conclude that the Petition for Review in this case was timely under the 59 day rule. Standard No. 208 was initially promulgated in 1967 and required manufacturers to install manual lap belts in all new motor vehicles. The ISTEA did not specify an air bag system design that manufacturers were required to use. Manufacturers were required to design air bags to protect adult passengers who chose not to wear seat belts. The dummy will experience excessive trauma during its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1107.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</U> were on brief. Burling</U> were on brief. Flom LLP</U> were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep02/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0449p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was bifurcated into a liability phase. Which was tried in front of a jury in the fall of 1999. Which was tried by the court in January 2001. The jury found that Alpine had advertised that its air cleaning products removed over 60 separately titled but in many cases overlapping This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5039.html">LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <U>Thomas W. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Daniel J. Of counsel were <U>Mark M. With them on the brief were <U>Loretta C. With him on the brief was <U>David Kasanow</U>. </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022100.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> HAWKE 3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Are codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 6701 and 6714. Rather than to the provisions as codified. 2 The West Virginia Bankers Association is a banking trade association consisting of community banks. Savings and loans located in West Virginia. 3 The Joint Appendix is cited as J.A. in this opinion. 4 CLINE v. Were preempted by federal law. Where there is a regulatory conflict between a State insurance regulator and a Federal regulator. The Federal or State regulator </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1412.html">SHARP V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/97-9028.htm">97-9028 -- KURZET V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 08/16/2000<BR></A><BR> These are: (4) the Kurzet's 24 room mansion in Orange. Alleging that they were deficient in their tax payments for the years 1987. The tax court found that the Kurzets were deficient in their tax payments because they claimed impermissible tax deductions in connection with the Tahiti property. The tax court felt that penalties were not appropriate in light of the fact that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1962.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brown & Dugan were on brief. P.L.L.C. was on brief. The sole question on appeal is whether ERISA preempts all state law claims related to an individual insurance policy obtained by an employee after termination of employment through the exercise of conversion rights granted by an employee welfare benefit plan. She was entitled to enroll in a group long term disability policy underwritten by ICNA. The second page was to be completed by Demars's employer. Her claim was approved in April 1994. That she was actually entitled only to a $100 minimum monthly benefit. Judgment was entered against Demars. Defendants would like us to complete the analysis by asking </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071675p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Shipping solid waste to Midwestern landfills has become big business particularly in places like New Jersey where capacity at in state landfills is scarce. Railroads are prime beneficiaries of the increased demand for the means of shipping waste across the country. Which often is brought to the loading facility by truck. Transferring solid waste from truck to rail car is not the cleanest of businesses. Is historically the subject of federal regulation. Because we conclude that the District Court's factfinding does not support its conclusion that all of the State's environmental regulations at issue are preempted here. They then paid </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4C2FE62749488A3E8825720C006FB770/$file/0515667.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have since dismissed their claims. 1 17676 ACLU v. The ordinances that are the focus of Plaintiffs' complaint were adopted as part of the City's effort to revitalize the downtown area of Las Vegas: In the early 1990s. Downtown Las Vegas was suffering from an economic downturn. The area was seen as sleazy and unsafe. Downtown casinos were unable to compete with the glitzy Las Vegas Strip. Key economic factors showed that the area was in decline. Were closed off to automotive traffic. The street and sidewalk were torn up. Various underground infrastructure eleFSELLC is a private company charged with operating the Fremont Street Experience in downtown Las Vegas. The Fremont Street Experience is described in detail below. 2 ACLU v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS 17677 ments were installed. The street was decoratively repaved as one large promenade. As the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/74F2383E591B74158825717600786CFB/$file/0417496.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Honolulu was among the first municipalities to enact 5642 CENTER FOR BIO ETHICAL REFORM v. The question presented in this appeal is whether the Ordinance may be used to restrict an advocacy group from towing aerial banners over the beaches of Honolulu. We must first decide whether the Ordinance is preempted by federal law. The Ordinance is a reasonable and viewpoint neutral restriction on speech in a nonpublic forum. The banner towing prohibited by the Ordinance is neither a historically important form of communication nor speech that has unique identifying attributes for which there is no practical substitute. BACKGROUND Honolulu's aerial advertising Ordinance is part of a longstanding scheme aimed at regulating outdoor advertising in order to protect the critical visual landscape that has made the area famous. Is not disputed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQ0NzAgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-4470%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitions for review are granted in part and denied in part. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 KATZMANN. We find that several aspects of the regulation violate the express terms of the Clean Water Act or are otherwise arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Statutory Background The Clean Water Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/96-1392a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reid were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief. Whatley were on the brief in No. 96 1392 for intervenors American Automobile Manufacturers Association and Association of International Automobile Man ufacturers. Reid were on the briefs. Whatley were on the brief. Petitioners are a number of associa tions that represent businesses that manufacture. Sell car parts in what is known as the automobile </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-7098.htm">97-7098 -- SOUTHERN DISPOSAL INC. V. TEXAS WASTE MANAGEMENT -- 12/02/1998<BR></A><BR> The City notified Southern Disposal it was no longer authorized to collect trash within the city limits after March 31. Southern Disposal filed suit. <p> The district court first addressed the federal questions involved to determine if federal jurisdiction was appropriate. Because no property right was implicated and both parties were granted fair and equal opportunity to participate in the competitive bidding process. <p> <u><strong></u></strong> Appellant argues on appeal: (1) the district court erroneously ruled that Southern Disposal's complaint fails to state any antitrust violation pertaining to the solid waste disposal market for Choctaw County. (2) the actions of the Defendants are not exempt from antitrust scrutiny because the Oklahoma legislature is constitutionally prohibited from articulating a state policy to permit displacement of all competition in the solid waste management business. The standard of review is <em>de novo</em>. <em> See Chemical Weapons Working Group. We will uphold a dismissal on this basis </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199908/98-5245a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Dan S. With him on the briefs was Philip B. The EEOC argues that Lutheran waived its claim that the report is protected by the attorney client and work product privileges by failing to comply with a regulation requiring subpoena recipients to present any objections to the Commis sion within five days. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/003387.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may seek to revisit those issues in consolidated administrative appeals in its own permitting process in a costly pr oceeding that will delay NE Hub's construction of the Facility. Principally on the jurisdictional gr ound that it was not ripe for decision before the state pr ocess concluded. We disagr ee with the district court on the ripeness issue and accordingly will reverse its order dismissing the action and will remand the case for further proceedings. The construction is a substantial undertaking requiring NE Hub to drill through the Oriskany sand formation which contains competing storage facilities owned by Penn Fuel Gas. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1584.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Kathleen Bucholtz and Katherine F. With him on the brief were Vincent J. Of counsel on the brief were Robert B. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). BACKGROUND Ford is a major importer of automobiles and automobile parts from all over the world. Specifically with its methods for handling the declaration of value for imported goods the price of which is subject to change after importation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1440.html">FLORIDA SUGAR MARKETING AND TERMINAL ASSOCIATION, INC., V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Terence P. With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Richard McManus</u>. The appeal was submitted for our decision following oral argument on April 7. The tax is imposed on the shipper and liability attaches at the time of unloading. Those payments are the subject of this appeal.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQwNjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4066-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was severely damaged when the train carrying the cargo derailed in Texas. The bills of lading were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1527.html">EXECUTONE INFORMATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1536.html">LEVI STRAUSS & COMPANY, V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Edward M. With him on the brief was <u>David W. Also on the brief were <u>Saul Davis</u>. Of counsel on the brief were <u>David M. Because the imported goods are disqualified from the partial exemption by application of 19 C.F.R. § . Jeans sold by Levi in the United States under its LEVI trademark.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1537.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kesten</SPAN> were on brief. Culliford</SPAN> were on brief. Which lies across the street from its railroad yard and is bounded by two railroad tracks. The site is in an aquifer protection area. Guilford went to federal court to seek a declaration that Ayer's efforts were preempted.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/963249P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> HOA (some of whose employees were employed by the Department before joining HOA) was performing grain weighing. Inspection services in grain warehouses in the Kansas City area that were licensed under the United States Warehouse Act. Such weights are a grain industry The Honorable Richard H. United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 32 1 standard (not a matter of federal or state law) and are obtained by a licensed weigher. That is. Who was then (and was from November 1981 through June 1994) the Division Director of Grain Inspection and Warehousing for the Department. The Department relied for its authority on the Missouri Grain Warehouse Law (the MGWL): The department shall have the exclusive right to officially weigh or supervise the actual weighing of grain in licensed terminal warehouses subject to the provisions of this chapter. Unless the owner or his agent indicates that no official weights are desired and may officially weigh or supervise the actual weighing of grain in public or private warehouses or industries upon application of the owners or operators thereof and their agreement to guarantee the operating costs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1002.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sulloway & Hollis were on brief. With whom Seufert Professional Association was on brief. THE ERISA ISSUE The curtain raiser question in this case involves whether the program under which Johnson sought benefits is subject to Title I of ERISA. We 3 scrutinize the record and test the district court's conclusion that the program is within the safe harbor. Preemption is triggered. Or may determine whether a jury trial is available. We are uncertain which of these boggarts has captured the minds of the protagonists in this case. Given the marshalled realities the parties agree 4 that the ERISA difference is of potential significance here. It is entirely plausible under the circumstances of this case that the applicability vel non of ERISA makes a meaningful difference we refrain from speculation about the parties' tactical goals and proceed directly to a determination of whether the court below correctly concluded that state law provides the rule of decision. 256 (8th Cir. 1994) (explaining that the existence of an ERISA plan is a mixed question of fact and law). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2361.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr.\ (former Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of\ Environmental Protection) have been substituted with Deval Patrick\ and Arleen O\'Donnell (Acting Commissioner of the Massachusetts\ Department of Environmental Protection) in both No. 06 2361 and No.\ 06 2362. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-1392a.html">MTR EQUIP MFTR ASSN V. NICHOLS MARY D.<BR></A><BR> Mezines</i> and <i>Michael T. <p> Reid</i> were on the briefs. <i>Louis R. Were on <p> the brief. <i>Karen L. Were on the brief.<p> <p> <i>John H. Whatley</i> were on the brief in No. <p> 96 1392 for intervenors American Automobile Manufacturers <p> Association and Association of International Automobile Man <p> ufacturers. Reid</i> <p> were on the briefs. <i>Louis R. Whatley</i> were on the brief.<p> <p> Before: Edwards. Petitioners are a number of associa <p> tions that represent businesses that manufacture. <p> sell car parts in what is known as the automobile </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2172.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 20. Carlos Del Valle with whom Ramirez & Ramirez was on brief for appellants. Graffam & Lausell were on brief for appellees. Who are defendant appellants in this case. There are scheduled payments for death or disability. Above those limits a tort action is allowed. It is the fee charged to fund the plan that has given rise to this litigation. 2 A Puerto Rican governmental entity. The fee in question is distinct from the ordinary annual charge made for a motor vehicle registration and license. The fee is designed to cover the cost of compensation paid through the plan and the cost of administering the plan. Each of which is subject to the fee. Trailer Marine is one of a number of companies that is engaged as a common carrier in transporting goods to and from the island of Puerto Rico. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQ0NzAgdyAybmQgRXJyYXRhLnBkZg==/03-4470%20w%202nd%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitions for review are granted in part and denied in part. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ERIC E. We find that several aspects of the regulation violate the express terms of the Clean Water Act or are otherwise arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Statutory Background The Clean Water Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1137p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether the Secretary acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving amendments that eliminate the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1139.html">SKF USA V. INA WALZLAGER SCHAEFFLER<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief was Herbert C. With her on the brief was David M. Of counsel on the brief were Stephen J. Of counsel was Myles S. With him on the brief was Terence P. Of counsel on the brief were Geert M. SKF GmbH is a manufacturer and exporter of AFBs in Germany. Inc. is a United States importer of German AFBs (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-5099a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/95-6000.html">KELLEY V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> Were on the brief for amici curiae. Was unconstitutional. I. Section 601 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 was enacted by the 103rd Congress. Was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Or service of an air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier through common controlling ownership when such carrier is transporting property by aircraft or by motor vehicle (whether or not such property has had or will have a prior or subsequent air movement). Or provision is no more burdensome than compliance with. Which was relied upon by the district court but was not cited in plaintiffs' complaint. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is not always applicable to suits filed against federal entities or officials. The doctrine does not apply in such cases because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/977A3690A89BE17D8825722D007DA4DA/$file/0415788.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Challenge the United States Department of Agriculture's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2618.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Parties No. 02 2618 The plaintiffs in this case are Alliant Energy Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1098.html">THE TIMKEN COMPANY V. US, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Terence P. Daniel Stirk</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Patrick J. Argued for defendants appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Neil C. Argue </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></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-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/022662p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brodie was found guilty by a jury of conspiring to trade with Cuba in violation of the American Cuban embargo currently in place under the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200105/99-1200a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Counsel appearing with them on the briefs were Andrea Bear Field. With them on the briefs were Lois J. With him on the briefs were Thomas F. Novello was on the brief of the Electric Generator intervenors. In response to petitions from several northeastern states that alleged that nitrogen oxide emitted in neighboring states was harming their local air quality. Are required to adopt state imple mentation plans ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1200a.html">APPALACHIAN POWER CO. V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Sullivan argued the issues for petitioners.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310262.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Shaw Industries' Plants No. 2 and No. 80.1 The Sierra Club contends that EPA is required to object to the King Finishing permit because Georgia EPD failed to implement a mailing list to notify the public of its right to comment on the permit. Navigating through the intricacies of the Clean Air Act is no task for the uninformed or the short winded. We will focus our beginning discussion on Title V of that Act. Following changes in ownership after their title V permits were issued. That issue is no longer before us because the parties have settled it. 1 3 In 1990 Congress amended the Clean Air Act to include Title V. The public to understand better the requirements to which the source is subject. Whether the source is meeting those requirements. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/003230P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge This case presents the issue of whether portions of the Minnesota Sprinkler Fitter statute and rules which require contractors to adopt approved apprenticeship programs is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The district court held that the statute and rules were preempted and issued a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the apprenticeship regulations. The statute was codified as Minn.Stat.Chap. 299M. One of the statutory provisions of the Sprinkler Fitter Licensing statute was the requirement that only licensed journeymen and registered apprentices could perform fire protection work. Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1144.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Selvo</SPAN> was on brief. These new councils were given </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981401.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and taxpayer Allen dispute whether § 163(h) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) of 1986 is facially ambiguous. Is a valid regulation. Ruling that the language of § 163(h) is clear. We find without doubt that I.R.C. § 163(h) is facially ambiguous. The district court ruled that the language of I.R.C. § 163(h) is so unambiguous on its face that Temp. Reg. § 1.163 9T(b)(2)(i)(A) is per se invalid. The facts of this case are essentially uncontested. Allen is a real estate developer. He is also the director and majority shareholder of D.R. That held among its assets a tract of land upon which apartments were subsequently built. Was later extended. The IRS eventually audited Allen and determined that he should have reported the gain on the sale of both properties on his own 1984 individual return. While the Tax Court proceeding was pending. Noting in a letter of explanation that income tax deficiency interest is considered nondeductible personal interest pursuant to Temp. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5083.html">MARITRANS INC., V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Laurie Frost Wilson</u>. <st1:State>Virginia</st1:State></st1:place>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Arthur J. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Douglas N. Line height:200%'>Maritrans Inc. is a marine petroleum transport company.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Maritrans Inc. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Maritrans asserted that the vessels were taken by the double hull requirement imposed by section 4115 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (". As far as twenty nine of the single hull tank vessels were concerned. Maritrans' takings claim was not ripe for adjudication.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Maritrans Inc. v. </u><st1:country region><st1:place><u>United States</u></st1:place></st1:country region>. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3132_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants in this class action have been permitted to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) from the district judge's refusal to dismiss. Upon which the district court's jurisdiction was premised. These are claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The complaint is a hideous sprawling mess. We have found it difficult and in many instances impossible to ascertain the nature of the charges. It would have been better had the defendants deferred their motion. Until either the defendants served contention interrogatories designed to smoke out what exactly the plaintiffs are charging. The judge told the plaintiffs to specify the acts of the defendants that they are complaining about so that he could decide how much of the complaint was preempted. The principal defendant and the only one we need discuss (the other defendant is a law firm charged with having assisted Ocwen in the misconduct of which the plaintiffs complain). Was at the times relevant to this case a federal savings and loan association engaged in servicing home mortgages originated by other lenders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/70EF41FD110D2EC388256E5A00707D54/$file/0070461.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Tax Court held that Suzy's Zoo exercised such degree of control over the manufacturing of its products by third party contractors that it was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1634974E811260988256B0A007A7D63/$file/0070461.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Tax Court held that Suzy's Zoo exercised such degree of control over the manufacturing of its products by third party contractors that it was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/022432p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are presented with a number of questions concerning certain requirements of the Consumer Leasing Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/02-1387a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200311384.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. The issue before us is whether the district court correctly determined that plaintiff appellant Randal Bragg failed to state a claim under the Truth in Lending Act. Bill Heard is licensed in Florida as a motor vehicle dealer and a motor vehicle retail installment seller. Both RISCs included insurance and debt cancellation coverage ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1354.html">HOUSTON OIL V. U.S.F.E.R.C.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/05/012461P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding the Missouri statute does not violate the Commerce Clause and is not preempted by federal law. Southern Union is a Delaware corporation having its principal office in Austin. Southern Union is subject to the Commission's regulatory authority. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/041007.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Russian company that is wholly owned by the Russian Federation. The catalyst for GNSS's lawsuit was Tenex's announcement that it would no longer perform under its contract to supply GNSS with uranium hexafluoride that Tenex received in exchange for uranium derived from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads. The United States' Executive Agent under this agreement is the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). Russia's is the Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM). Tenex is then able not only to ship some of that uranium hexafluoride back to Russia for use in further dilution of weapons grade HEU pursuant to the 1993 Agreement between the United States and Russia. Tenex informed GNSS that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90B5FFB18A092A6F88256DDD000000FE/$file/0210318.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stewart believed the kits were legal to sell because the receivers on the rifles had not yet been completely machined and the rifles were thus not usable as firearms. Stewart was charged and convicted of one count of felony UNITED STATES v. No charges were brought against Stewart regarding the advertised parts kits that were initially the subject of the investigation. Claiming that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is an invalid exercise of Congress's commerce power and violates the Second Amendment. Notably absent from this provision is any jurisdictional requirement that the machinegun has traveled in or substantially affected interstate commerce. Defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he makes a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1317p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Coastal filed a counterclaim against Nautilus alleging that Nautilus was solely responsible for the grounding. We are asked to determine whether the district court erred in admitting opinions and conclusions contained in a Coast Guard Report of the incident into evidence. We will affirm the ruling of the district court. I. We need only briefly set forth the underlying facts as they are detailed in the district court's opinion. The approach to the berth was unsafe. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96DB0E84FBE9E0FE88256D6F0006B8FE/$file/0016858.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Weston was on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. A sexually oriented business is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012201.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sale was not a simple cash for product exchange. Was committed to the transaction and obliged to perform upon counter signature by Koons Buick. The transaction's closing and the completion of Nigh's purchase were thus left within the dealership's unilateral control. Was unable to find a willing lender. Told Koons Buick he did not have an additional $2. Believing the vehicle to have earlier become property of Koons Buick. Nigh also learned that one of the reasons Koons Buick had been unable to get a lender to accept RISC II was that it contained an unaccounted for charge. Was listed on the second Buyer's Order and on RISC II at a price of $965. Absent from the transaction documents was a Silencer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1052.html">FORD MOTOR COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-7117c.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Donald E. On the brief was Jeffrey E. Of counsel on the brief was Barton F. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Mark A. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. We hold that the regulation is valid and accordingly deny the petition for review. Some background on the administration of veterans benefits is helpful to understanding the operation of this regulation. Among the most important of benefit programs administered by the VA is the disability compensation program. An initial decision on benefits is rendered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/59A5DF91D0F1993B88256E140056A274/$file/0217474.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that the statements were either not made as alleged or were forward looking statements accompanied by meaningful disclaimers of uncertainty or caution that were protected by the safe harbor provision of the PSLRA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which was looking for a possible acquisition in the spring of 1998. The exchange rate was determined by the average price of Clorox stock during a preset </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/943714P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had the authority to prohibit acts which were not themselves fraudulent under the common law or § 10(b) of the Exchange Act. I. Factual and Procedural Background O'Hagan was a senior partner in the 275 lawyer Dorsey & Whitney law firm in Minneapolis. Dorsey & Whitney was local counsel representing Grand Metropolitan PLC (Grand Met). O'Hagan later was charged in a 57 count indictment for mail fraud. He was sentenced to 41 months' imprisonment. We now address the parties' arguments that were not resolved in our prior opinion and which were reserved to us in the Supreme Court's opinion. In relevant part: Any person who willfully violates any provision of this chapter . . . or any rule or regulation thereunder the violation of which is made unlawful. . . shall upon conviction be fined not more than $100. Are two sturdy safeguards Congress has provided regarding scienter. We think it is clear that the Supreme Court was simply explaining that the statute provides that a negligent or reckless violation of the securities law cannot result in criminal liability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1096.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Curtis W. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Karen P. With him on the brief were Matthew W. Of counsel was Angie M. Also of counsel were Will E. Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1293.html">FUJITSU COMPOUND SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>George W. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. Fujitsu seeks reliquidation and reclassification at the lower rate.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Court of International Trade held that reliquidation is not available on the facts of this case.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The decision is affirmed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%. Line height:200%'><span style='mso bidi font family:Arial'>Laser diode modules are gallium arsenide semiconductor devices that emit laser light. Are used in telecommunication systems to transmit signals across fiber optic cable.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This appeal concerns thirty nine entries of laser diode modules by Fujitsu between October 18. 1992.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>These entries were classified in accordance with Headquarters Ruling Letter No. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/023756P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a case about the taxability of business and entertainment expenses spent on a Canadian fishing trip. After the Internal Revenue Service determined that the per employee cost of Townsend Industries' annual fishing trip was wages. Sitting by designation. 1 expenses involved in the trips were employee wages within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. Ruled that a portion of these wages should have been withheld for income tax and Social Security and Medicare taxes. Business discussions were conducted on an on going basis during the trip. The District Court's holding that Townsend failed to establish that its trips had a business purpose is a legal conclusion that we review de novo. 469 U.S. at 249 n.8 (explaining that presence of elements constituting </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-3161a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Thomas G. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Senior Circuit Judge: Appellant Roger James Sullivan pled guilty to one count of knowingly possessing child pornography images that were transported in interstate commerce via the Internet. Appellant moved to have his indictment dismissed by the District Court. Which was decided after the District Court's ruling. Or that was produced using materials that have been mailed. Appellant was indicted on one count of possession of ten or more items of child pornography that had been transported in interstate or foreign commerce by computer. The proffer of facts supporting the plea agreement is straightforward. Appellant was working for FOX News Productions in Washington. FOX is a broadcast and cable news network that produces and distributes news and information programs throughout the United States. Whose server is located in Herndon. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children analyzed the pornography and determined that many of the images were downloaded from Eastern European and Russian Internet sites. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/99-5088a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Joseph O. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With her on the brief were David M. Was on the brief for amicus curiae The Government of the Republic of Iceland. With him on the brief was Gary C. L.L.C. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1008p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is one of first impression in the courts of appeals. Are the exclusive means for determining the bioequivalence of generic drugs approved pursuant to the abbreviated new drug application procedure ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1028.html">JVC COMPANY OF AMERICA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Beth C. We affirm.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/951665P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court concluded that Commerce Clause restrictions do not apply to the statute because the state of South Dakota is acting as a market participant in the video lottery business. The court further held that the statute The does not violate the Equal Protection Clause and that the plaintiffs have no standing to assert the Privileges and Immunities Clause challenge. plaintiffs appeal. Various forms of gambling are legal. Which is Video lottery consists of games of chance played South Dakota operates its video on a computer controlled video machine. Which are regulated by the state of South Dakota. Which are owned and operated by the state of South Dakota. Which is located in the main office of the South Dakota Lottery in Pierre. South Dakota. played or the modems attached to the Although the state does not own the video machines on which the games of chance are The South Dakota Lottery began operating in October 1989. The Supreme Court of South Dakota declared that the state was not actually running a lottery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7117a.html">A I TRD FIN INC V. PETRA INTL BNKG CORP<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5019.html">CONSOLIDATED COAL COMPANY, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Steven H. Was <u>John Y. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>David M. Deputy Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>John Smathers</u>. Whichever is less. Whichever is less.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBlockText><span style='font family:Arial. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5270b.html">CAREER CLGE ASSN V. RILEY RICHARD W.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1363a.html">MACLEOD JEFF V. ICC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2446.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the statute on the ground that it is preempted by the Supremacy Clause and violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Which establishes the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/01-1028a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1243.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Bray & Guillemard were on brief for appellees. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is subject to the constraints of the Dormant Commerce Clause to the same degree as are the states. Was an impermissible burden on interstate commerce hence invalid under the Dormant Commerce Clause. 1United Egg Producers is an Atlanta. Is a San Juan. Trade association representing Puerto Rican distributors of food products. 3 Section X(F) requires the labeling of eggs imported from elsewhere in the United States into Puerto Rico: Imported eggs to be marketed in Puerto Rico shall have the letters from the state of origin if produced in a state of the United States using the initials established by the United States Postal Service. Section X(F) purports to have been promulgated in conformity with the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA). Puerto Rico is. This appeal presents two main questions: (1) whether section X(F) of Puerto Rico's Market Regulation Number 3 was. (2) if the Dormant Commerce Clause is applicable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5103.html">ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Thomas A. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Margaret Breinholt</u>. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Jason C. Claiming that United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) regulations that restricted egg sales from and imposed other requirements on farms that tested positive for the presence of <span style='mso bidi font style:italic'>salmonella</span> bacteria effected a taking requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The trial court held that Rose Acre was entitled to compensation for a taking of the eggs affected by the regulations. Line height:200%'><span style='mso bidi font family:Arial'>BACKGROUND<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%'><span style='mso bidi font family: Arial'>I.<span style='mso tab coun </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1285p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the ruling of the district court. Which is incorporated into the Social Security Act as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1122.html">SAARSTAHL AG V. USA<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was J. Of counsel was Kara K. On the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief were Stephen J. With him on the brief was Willis S. Of counsel were Alan H. Only if its debt burden were alleviated. Of grants bestowed in the years the RZVs were made. Commerce also determined that the debt forgiveness by private banks constituted a countervailable subsidy because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/05-5185a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Elliot J. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Circuit Judge: This Freedom of Information Act appeal is a footnote to the long trade dispute in which the United States and American softwood lumber companies have raised complaints about alleged unfair trade practices by the Canadian Government and Canadian softwood lumber exporters. The Department of Commerce imposed duties on imports of Canadian softwood lumber to the United States (duties that have since been rescinded as a result of the recent bilateral settlement). At issue in this appeal are 17 third party letters that the Department had received from American lumber companies. Also at issue are 51 sets of internal Department notes. The Department has provided Baker Hostetler numerous other softwood lumber related documents that are not at issue on appeal. The firm argues it is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200105/00-5244a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was John S. With him on the brief were Wilma A. United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Gallagher were on the brief for amici curiae New York State Bar Association. 000 ... were questionable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1436p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Governor of Pennsylvania has the power to remove the appointed DRPA Commissioners at will. We will affirm the April 12. I. Jurisdiction of the district court was invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(b). Our review of the district court's interpretation of the interstate compact is plenary. The Compact was originally enacted by the Pennsylvania and New Jersey legislatures in 1931 and is codified in reciprocal statutes at Pa. The DRPA was created. Eight of whom are appointed from Pennsylvania and eight of whom are appointed from New Jersey. All commissioners shall continue to hold office after the expiration of the terms for which they are appointed or elected until their respective successors are appointed and qualify. The states have significant control over the DRPA. The state legislatures amended the Compact to allow each state to pass legislation authorizing its Governor to veto the action of any of the state's commissioners within ten days of receipt of the minutes of the meeting at which the vote was taken. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/772DBEE0A970D8DC88257060004C8055/$file/0535264.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended. Is deleted and replaced by the following footnote 17: 17. USDA instituted a policy of barring the importation of ruminants1 and ruminant products from countries where BSE was known to exist. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE was first diagnosed in England in the late 1980s. It conRuminants are hoofed mammals generally defined by their fourchambered stomachs and their practice of chewing a cud consisting of regurgitated. BSE is a species of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/01-5391a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Stephen A. With him on the brief was John F. Several companies have applied to the Food and Drug Administration for permission to sell generic versions of Paxil when GSK's patents expire. The Federal Trade Commission is investigat ing whether GSK. Because GSK declined to pro duce hundreds of others primarily on the ground that they were shielded by the attorney client privilege the Commis sion petitioned the district court to enforce the subpoena. The Commission would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1319.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Haber & Urmy were on brief. Were on brief. Contending that the Tax Court erred both in finding that the deficiency assessment was timely and in holding that certain of the Association's activities gave rise to liability for unrelated business income tax. I. BACKGROUND The Association is a labor organization. Is exempt from income taxes under 26 U.S.C. The purpose of the organization is to represent its members in bargaining over the terms and conditions of their employment and to promote a fraternal spirit among members. Virtually all the troopers who are eligible to join the Association do so. We will refer to the applicable provisions of the Tax Code. S 501(c)(5) will be cited as IRC S 501(c)(5). It is enough for now to say that the earnings program proved to be aptly named: gross receipts related to the publication of The Constabulary for the years at issue totalled $8. Is of no consequence here). It is said that all good things come to an end. Federal law requires that an otherwise tax exempt organization must pay federal income tax on income derived from business ventures which are not substantially related to its tax exempt purpose(s). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5244a.html">U.S. V. LEGAL SERVICES FOR NEW YORK CITY<BR></A><BR> Riehl argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3A12983071711CF4882570490055E969/$file/0535264.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> USDA instituted a policy of barring the importation of ruminants1 and ruminant products from countries where BSE was known to exist. We reverse.2 Ruminants are hoofed mammals generally defined by their fourchambered stomachs and their practice of chewing a cud consisting of regurgitated. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE was first diagnosed in England in the late 1980s. BSE is a species of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5391a.html">FTC V. GLAXOSMITHKLINE<BR></A><BR> Schwarz argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/lognameprint.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jerome Wayne Johnson</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13595 / 03 00036 CR J 25 TEM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 12 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/lognameprint2.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align left valign=top>In re: Will C. Cohen</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13162 / 02 23079 CV KMM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 08 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align left valign=top>In re: Will C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1228.html">NOVACOR CHEMICALS, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief was Karen P. The Court of International Trade held that the withheld drawback payments were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1222.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Proctor & Hoar LLP were on brief. With whom Laura Steinberg and Sullivan & Worcester LLP were on brief. Ropes & Gray were on brief. P.C. were on brief. We determine that Cablevision is unlikely. We further conclude that Cablevision is unlikely to prevail on its Chapter 93A claim in this action. I. FACTS The facts are largely taken from the opinion of the district court. These are undisputed. The few points of disagreement are noted. Because key aspects of this case involve changes that have occurred over time and actions that are alleged to have been untimely. The electricity and cable television businesses were once entirely distinct enterprises. Cablevision is equally well established in Boston as a provider of cable television. Although its two franchise agreements with the City have been non exclusive. Both Boston Edison and Cablevision have needed to install conduit under the streets of Boston. Which is the division of the City's Department of Public Works responsible for construction projects involving City streets. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021744.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was secured by a mortgage on the Beatties' residence in Greenville. They claim to have made repeated attempts. Indicated that the Beatties' mortgage was satisfied. The Beatties concede that they have never paid all of the amounts due on the loan. NationsCredit attempted to collect the debt and informed the Beatties that their mortgage was in default. At some point after the LMS was filed. Revealed that their mortgage with NationsCredit was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0260p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Anna Marie Bowling Irrevocable Trust Page 2 The district court found that Spectrum's lien on the proceeds of a malpractice settlement was valid and enforceable. Therefore is invalid. Spectrum argues that the issue of the validity of the lien is precluded by two prior state court judgments approving the malpractice settlement. We conclude that the issue is not precluded by either of the state court judgments. That the lien on the settlement is prohibited by federal and state Medicaid law. I. BACKGROUND The material facts in this case are undisputed. Bowling has little or no control of her limbs and is unable to speak. Spectrum is the parent company of a group of providers of sub acute rehabilitation and nursing services. Bowling was admitted to GVHC in December 1998. The total customary cost of Spectrum's services provided to Bowling during the time she resided at GVHC was $639. The 1 It is unclear from the record how Bowling's co payments factor into the shortfall. Spectrum states that its total customary cost was $639. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36F1D87F2676FE1888256E5A00707C13/$file/9935818.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The United States appeals the district court's summary judgment determining that the Boeing Company and its consolidated subsidiaries ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1044.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief for The Sherwin Williams Company. Brilliant and New England Legal Foundation were on brief for Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire. P.A. were on brief for Eastern Mountain Platform Tennis. Aluminum panels are washed with acid to eliminate grease and etch the surface. The panels are sanded to increase the profile of the surface. A layer of primer epoxy paint is applied. Aluminum oxide aggregate is pneumatically broadcast over the wet epoxy primer layer. A topcoat of epoxy paint is applied. Aluminum oxide aggregate is pneumatically broadcast over the wet topcoat. The paint system must have two important characteristics. The primer coat must adhere to the aluminum through extreme changes of temperature because the game is played outdoors on a year round basis with a heater installed under the platform to melt snow and ice. Both the primer coat and the topcoat must have the capacity to hold aluminum oxide aggregate to insure a gritty nonslip surface for platform tennis players. 3 Sherwin Williams had violated an express warranty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3207_008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Frank Bros. is a construction company with its principal place of business in Janesville. Which were funded by capital from both federal and state agencies through the provisions of the Federal Aid Highway Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/02-5041a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411658.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That § 922(d) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' commerce power. Because sufficient evidence was presented at trial for the jury to conclude that Peters knowingly sold a firearm and ammunition to a convicted felon. Peters was a federally licensed firearms dealer from 1994 until his license expired in April 2001. ATF Agent Nick Cheremeta had seen Peters at gun shows and knew that he was no longer a licensed firearms dealer. He employed a confidential informant to determine whether Peters was still selling guns out of his store. 2 The confidential informant. Was born Gary Bruce Wilson and. John was convicted of one count of felony aggravated assault in the Superior Court of Tattnall County. John was given his new name and assigned a new social security number. John's first contact with Peters was on April 11. This is all my personal stuff. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1577.html">INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199710/96-1253b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Franklin were on the briefs. Lobner were on the briefs. Were on the brief. I. Airports are required by statute to charge aeronautical users reasonable fees.1 Section 511 of the Airports and Airways Improvements Act. Requires an airport that accepts federal grant money (or land) to assure that the airport will be available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimina tion. Or guidelines establishing ... the standards or guidelines that shall be used by the Secretary in determining under this section whether an airport fee is reasonable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/487744B4FFBA1C5688256A9C00598EAE/$file/9935818.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The United States appeals the district court's summary judgment determining that the Boeing Company and its consolidated subsidiaries ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1255a.html">ETHYL CORPORATION, V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Fast argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></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-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021744A.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was secured by a mortgage on the Beatties' residence in Greenville. They claim to have made repeated attempts. Indicated that the Beatties' mortgage was satisfied. The Beatties concede that they have never paid all of the amounts due on the loan. NationsCredit attempted to collect the debt and informed the Beatties that their mortgage was in default. At some point after the LMS was filed. Revealed that their mortgage with NationsCredit was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412420.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are small loans with interest rates averaging 400 500% APR due on the next payday. This appeal presents the question of whether the State of Georgia may regulate a narrow segment of agency agreements between in state payday stores and out of state banks or whether the Georgia Act in issue is preempted by § 27(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972554.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 2 the first amicus curiae is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1066.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/062406P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reiterating those claims and asserting that the district court should have admitted the deposition testimony of the president of the Iowa Lottery Authority (the Lottery). A TouchPlay machine is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1062.html">CLASSIC TIME V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5154.html">JAMES G. ROBINSON V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Samuel M. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Richard Farber</u>. A provision that addresses deductions for employers who use property transfers (other than money) to compensate employees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>That statute provides that the amount of the employer s deduction is equal to the amount included in the employee s gross income as a result of the transfer.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The issue presented to us is whether the amount of the employer s deduction is the value of the transferred property that is includible in the employee s gross income as a matter of law or only the amount that is actually included in the employee s gross income.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Court of Federal Claims held that the amount of the employer s deduction under section 83(h) is limited to the value of the transferred property that is actually included in the employee s gross income. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1526b.html">ALLIED LOCAL AND REGIONAL MANUFACTURERS CAUCUS V. EPA<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were James </p> <p> . With </p> <p>him on the briefs were Christopher G. With him on the brief were </p> <p>Lois J. Steinzor were on the brief for intervenors. </p> <p>Thomas J. The regulations were issued pursuant to section </p> <p>183(e) of the Clean Air Act. Petitioners are Dunn Edwards Corporation. Intervening on EPA's side are </p> <p>other industry groups including the National Paint &. </p> <p>that EPA's regulations are lawful and deny the petitions for </p> <p>review.</p> <p>I</p> <p>The Clean Air Act. One of the </p> <p>pollutants so identified and regulated by the agency is </p> <p>ground level ozone. Man made ozone </p> <p>can have a wide array of negative effects on human health. Is aimed at mitigating the </p> <p>problem of ground level ozone. The </p> <p>Senate Environment and Public Works Committee explained the </p> <p>impact of ground level ozone on human health:</p> <p>Ozone is fatal at high concentrations. </p> <p>increased susceptibility to respiratory infections.</p> <p>Potentially more troubling and less well understood are the </p> <p>effects of long term chronic exposure to summertime ozone </p> <p>concentrations found in many cities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1035a.html">TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT CO. V. FCC<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter Keisler. Joffe and Henk Brands were on the briefs for </P> <P>petitioner Time Warner Entertainment Co. Leanza and Harold </P> <P>Feld were on the briefs for petitioner Consumers Union.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/98-1526a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were James R. With him on the briefs were Christopher G. With him on the brief were Lois J. Steinzor were on the brief for intervenors. The regulations were issued pursuant to section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act. Petitioners are Dunn Edwards Corporation. Intervening on EPA's side are other industry groups including the National Paint & Coat ings Association. We conclude that EPA's regulations are lawful and deny the petitions for review. One of the pollutants so identified and regulated by the agency is ground level ozone. Man made ozone can have a wide array of negative effects on human health. Is aimed at mitigating the problem of ground level ozone. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee explained the impact of ground level ozone on human health: Ozone is fatal at high concentrations. Potentially more troubling and less well understood are the effects of long term chronic exposure to summertime ozone concentrations found in many cities. Ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOx) react with volatile organic com pounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200008/98-1526b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were James R. With him on the briefs were Christopher G. With him on the brief were Lois J. Steinzor were on the brief for intervenors. The regulations were issued pursuant to section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act. Petitioners are Dunn Edwards Corporation. Intervening on EPA's side are other industry groups including the National Paint & Coat ings Association. We conclude that EPA's regulations are lawful and deny the petitions for review. One of the pollutants so identified and regulated by the agency is ground level ozone. Man made ozone can have a wide array of negative effects on human health. Is aimed at mitigating the problem of ground level ozone. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee explained the impact of ground level ozone on human health: Ozone is fatal at high concentrations. Potentially more troubling and less well understood are the effects of long term chronic exposure to summertime ozone concentrations found in many cities. Ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOx) react with volatile organic com pounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200103/94-1035a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter Keisler. Joffe and Henk Brands were on the briefs for petitioner Time Warner Entertainment Co. Leanza and Harold Feld were on the briefs for petitioner Consumers Union. With him on the brief were Christopher J. Frederick Beckner III were on the brief for intervenor Time Warner Entertainment Co. The first type is horizontal. Addressing operators' scale: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200210/99-1255a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Douglas S. With him on the brief was John T. With him on the brief were Richard A. Section 206 charges the Envi ronmental Protection Agency with testing new motor vehicles to ensure that each vehicle's emissions will comply with federal emissions standards throughout its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/02-1262a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/05-1188a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Charles H. With him on the brief were Peter D. With her on the brief were Adam C. This legislation required the Secretary of Transportation to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/985522.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The constitutionality of a statute criminalizing an activity that is not directly linked to interstate commerce. The precise question before us is whether it was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause to enact 18 U.S.C. Which imposes criminal liability on individuals who possess child pornography that has not itself traveled in interstate commerce as long as one of the materials from which the pornography was created in this case. This statute has a jurisdictional element or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-1318.htm">01-1318 -- CHOA V. ROCKY'S AUTO INC. -- 04/25/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/97-1304.htm">97-1304 -- ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS INC. V. SLATER -- 09/25/2000<BR></A><BR> We are just one race here. It is American. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314122.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case involves two airline pilots who have been charged with violating Florida criminal statutes prohibiting the operation of an aircraft while intoxicated. They assert that the Florida statutes at issue are preempted by federal law. Because we find the preemption claims in the instant case are not facially conclusive. We hold that the district court should have abstained. The pilots were instructed to taxi back to the gate. Whereupon they were interviewed by MiamiDade police officers. Approximately two hours later were taken to a MiamiDade police station where the officers administered breathalyser tests to both appellees. The breathalyser results were 0.084 and 0.081 breath alcohol level for Hughes and 0.091 and 0.090 breath alcohol level for Cloyd. Appellees were subsequently charged with operating an aircraft while intoxicated. Appellees claimed that federal law preempted the Florida state statutes under which appellees were being prosecuted and therefore the district court should. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314326.rem.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court with instructions to reconsider our decision. In which we held that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant's conduct. James Maxwell was convicted of two counts of knowingly possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). After growing suspicious that Maxwell was using Wallace's computer to obtain and view child pornography. Which the court read to the jury: It is stipulated and agreed between the parties that the computer zip disk that is the basis for Count 1 of the Indictment. The computer floppy disk that is the basis for Count 2 of the Indictment. Were both manufactured outside the State of Florida and have been mailed. Or that was produced using materials that have been mailed. The Government relied upon the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE3MTBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1710_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Government contends that the District Court erred in requiring proof of Cassese's belief that the Compuware/DPRC transaction was. Or was likely to be. The Government only needed to show that Cassese believed his transactions 2 were unlawful to prove that he acted willfully. Because we conclude that the Government giving it all the presumptions to which it is entitled failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cassese willfully violated Rule 14e 3 even under the more relaxed definition of willfulness it proposes. BACKGROUND I Cassese was the Chairman and President of Computer Horizons Corporation. Both of which were forwarded to Computer Horizons on May 4. Goldsmith called Cassese and told him that it was unlikely that Compuware would acquire Computer Horizons at that time. DPRC was a publicly traded company based on the West Coast that was similar in size and lines of business to Computer Horizons. To call Cassese to inform him that Compuware was going to buy another company and that Compuware might be interested in acquiring Computer Horizons at some point in the future. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012352.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' appeal of the Western District of Virginia's grant of Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. At issue is the constitutionality of Va. The District Court's ruling granting summary judgment and striking down the statute is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs' speech is accessible both within and outWe do not recite here the specifics of how the Internet functions. We note that the general contours of the Internet have been described in various other judicial opinions. Plaintiffs facially challenged the constitutionality of section 18.2 391 and were granted a permanent injunction by the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia enjoining the enforcement of the statute. Of commercial materials that are harmful to juveniles. Several plaintiffs brought suit challenging the 1985 amendment as facially unconstitutional on the grounds that it was impermissibly vague and violated the First Amendment. The statute was eventually upheld by the Fourth Circuit in light of a narrowing construction accorded to the statute by the Supreme Court of Virginia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014026.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Incorporated (All Ports) were convicted of conspiracy to export defense articles on the United States Munitions List (Munitions List) without a license and conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Bing Sun was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment. Is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114688.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case implicates the tension between the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5163a.html">FEC V. NRA<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114688.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case implicates the tension between the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1186.html">NTN BEARING V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5163a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Lawrence M. The NRA argues that because it is a not for profit organization formed to promote the political views of its members. Because the corporate contributions the NRA received in 1980 were de minimis. Which are not involved in this case) from making </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413065.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have determined that GAIC. Rigel Ships Agencies ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3314.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide whether a pension plan amendment which expands the types of post retirement employment that trigger mandatory suspension of early retirement benefits violates ERISA's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313858.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.1 We first hold that the SZO's provision excluding churches and synagogues from locations where private clubs and lodges are permitted violates the equal terms provision of RLUIPA. We must decide whether RLUIPA is a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority under the First. Finding that it is. Midrash and Young Israel (collectively the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1421.html">MITSUBISHI V. USA<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were Frederic D. With her on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief was Chi S. Mitsubishi paid all liquidated duties that were due and challenged the classifications in the Court of International Trade. Because the parts were not specifically provided for under a separate subheading. See id. at 1395.<p> Mitsubishi argued in its 1997 motion that Mitsubishi I was controlling. The Court of International Trade found that Note 2(a) of Section XVI </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAxNjktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0169-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we hold that the special condition would have given notice to a reasonable parolee that he should not buy the * The Honorable Richard K. Because no reasonable enforcing officer could have doubted that Scum fell within the terms of the condition. We hold that the special condition was not unconstitutionally vague as applied. A paroled sex offender whose First Amendment rights to sexual material were limited. Circuit Judge: The principal question presented by this appeal is whether a special condition of parole that prohibited the possession of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan95/93-3508.html">BARNETT BANK V. GALLAGHER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Barnett Bank v. The Florida Associations of Insurance Agents allege that the district court erred in finding that Appellant Barnett Marion was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-8060.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> €the€City€would€be€entitled€to€qualified€immunity€onÐ </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1006.html">ROCKNEL FASTENER, INC., V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1634.html">CONSOLIDATED BEARINGS COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief was <u>David M. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>John D. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Cris R. Will &. Line height:200%'>Because no other subsection of 28 U.S.C. § 1581 was or could have been a basis for jurisdiction in this case. Trial court was correct in finding jurisdiction under section 1581(i).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In addition. Line height:200%'>Commerce issues antidumping duty orders for imported merchandise that is sold in the United States below its fair value and materially injures or threatens to injure a domestic industry.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> 19 U.S.C. § 1673e (2000). Each participating importer of FAG manufactured AFBs received a new specific duty rate.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Information concerning Consolidated s imports and the reseller that export </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1577.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1682.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Dana & Gould were on brief for appellees. The result is that only the lead bank has a direct contractual relationship with the borrower. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/991324.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Enough is Enough. In which the Court held that our decision affirming the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0084p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community is a federally recognized Indian tribe with approximately 3. The Community is the successor in interest to the L'Anse and Ontonagon bands of Chippewa Indians. The TPTA states that its intent is to levy the tobacco tax against the consumers of tobacco products. Although it is the licensee's responsibility to collect and account for the tax. The state can tax sales made by a tribe to individuals who are not tribal members. A state like Michigan is faced with a somewhat complicated collection scheme when. The Community was party to such an agreement with the state from 1977 until the state terminated it in 1997. Revised agreements were reached with eight of the tribes. The State will now require all wholesalers and/or unclassified acquirers to collect these taxes at the point of sale even where the retail purchaser is an Indian Tribe or tribal member. All packs of cigarettes sold at retail from within Indian Country will bear a special stamp applied by the wholesaler to clearly indicate that tax has been paid. . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944323.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As they are partners in South Florida Cogeneration Associates. Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment by the district court. 1 Two questions are presented: first. Whether a public utility is immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine of Parker v. The denial of a motion for summary judgment under the state action immunity doctrine is immediately appealable under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule. The appeals were then consolidated by order of this court as they both involve the same parties and the same issues. Are taken from the same summary judgment order. 1 * 63 S.Ct. 307. Whether lobbying of a county legislative body by the utility is protected from antitrust liability under the Noerr/Pennington doctrine. The district court found that the utility was not entitled to immunity from antitrust sanctions for its actions. The denial by the district court of the utility's Cogeneration is the production of electricity and useful thermal energy at a single facility. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/93-3508.html">BARNETT BANK V. GALLAGHER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Barnett Bank v. The Florida Associations of Insurance Agents allege that the district court erred in finding that Appellant Barnett Marion was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-1057a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0149p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WITT hired away several of ATC's other employees and created a transmission parts catalog that was almost identical to the ATC catalog. On which Hester had worked while he was with * The Honorable Donald E. I There are three areas of dispute between ATC and the Appellees: (1) the relationship between ATC and Kenny Hester. Produced a flyer indicating that WITT was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5064.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Michael E. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Bernard A. Of counsel on the brief was Robin S. With her on the brief were Robert A. Of counsel on the brief was Douglas W. With him on the brief were Donald J. Of counsel on the brief was Robert G. Because DESC's price setting mechanism was consistent with the applicable regulations. We reverse the decisions of the trial court holding that DESC's practice was illegal. I. BACKGROUND DESC is the principal purchaser of military fuel for the United States Department of Defense. The reference prices to which the price adjustments were tied were drawn from market publications. Which is published by the Department of Energy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199811/97-1651a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Harvey M. With him on the briefs were Gene E. With him on the brief were Lois J. With him on the brief were Patti Goldman. With him on the brief were Rex R. Circuit Judge: Before the court are petitions to review a rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1997 to implement the anti dumping provision of the reformulated gasoline program established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The petitioners are the George E. The statutory </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTIwMjQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2024-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that even if we were to recognize that the ordinances burden interstate commerce. We would find that the burden imposed is not clearly excessive in relation to the local benefits conferred by the ordinances. We are called upon to decide whether a non discriminatory municipal flow control regulation that does not place non local firms at a competitive disadvantage. The municipal scheme at issue requires that the garbage generated by local households and businesses be delivered to facilities which are owned and operated by a public corporation. The trash is then delivered by a private contractor to a designated landfill site. Or is reused or recycled. Inc. is a New York not for profit corporation comprised of solid waste management companies. Each of the remaining plaintiffs is a New York business entity that was a member of the United Haulers Association operating in Oneida and Herkimer Counties at the time this suit was filed. The Authority charges a per ton </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="122"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D64727E1F87230A488256DE4000124DC/$file/0256197.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A United States Postal worker who was delivering mail in Chatsworth. Ileto's sole surviving dependent parent and three of the children who were shot at the JCC filed a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court against multiple defendants involved in the manufacture. The case was removed to federal district court. All motions were granted. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their public nuisance and state law negligence claims.1 Because the plaintiffs have stated a cognizable claim under California tort law for negligence and public nuisance against 1 When we refer to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="122"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/952791P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is required to pay federal income tax on certain payments it received through its sponsorship of group insurance plans. affirm. The Academy is a national association of family physicians that was organized to represent the interests of family physicians and to promote quality health care. The Academy is exempt from federal income tax as a The Academy created the business league under 26 U.S.C. § 501(a). We conclude the payments are not taxable. American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation (Foundation) to serve as The Foundation is exempt from federal income See id. § 501(a). Life insurance plans that are available to Academy members and their employees. The policies were initially administered by an individual. ISI is a for profit corporation that pays federal The ISI when he died. Principal controls the investment of The group policies require Principal to turn over to the In the Academy any reserve funds remaining after the policies have been terminated and all the claims have been paid. Whether the insurance plans are profitable for Principal or not. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="122"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1621.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> N Walker Merino</SPAN> were on consolidated brief. There are fewer than 8. The Commission and the Commonwealth (which had intervened in the proceedings below) appeal from this ruling.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="122"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1513.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. This case presents constitutional issues of first impression in this circuit: whether the CPPA's definition of child pornography is so overbroad as to contravene the First Amendment or so vague as to violate due process. The court was troubled by a perceived difficulty in determining whether a depicted person appeared to be under 18 years old and by its belief that the statute impermissibly criminalizes possession of adult pornography. It neither impinges substantially on protected expression nor is so vague as to offend due process. We must carefully consider fundamental constitutional norms in light of recent technological advances to determine whether Congress's objectives and the statutory scheme it has established are in accord with our constitutional design. Lawmakers wished to improve law enforcement tools to keep pace with technological improvements that have made it possible for child pornographers to use computers to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="122"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/99-1009a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were William Malone and Nicholas P. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief were James H. Or use of [anten nas that are designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service. Is invalid on its face. If there is no taking. We deny the petition. 1 Petitioners are the Building Owners and Managers Associa tion International. Or use of [a s 207 device] ... is prohibited.... 47 C.F.R. s 1.4000 (1996). The rule allowed for several exceptions: Restric tions on s 207 devices were permissible if they served a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="122"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5108.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Kathy Bailey. With her on the brief were Thomas L. Of counsel was Susan V. With her on the brief was Roger J. Did not have a cognizable property interest </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="122"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/801F57B52029863A88257020006E31AD/$file/0216019.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Prohibits United States citizens from investing in and trading with Iran.1 The question we face is whether an American citizen's guarantees of payments that furthered a trade agreement with an Iranian company are covered by the Executive Order and. Whether the guarantees are unenforceable as a result. We conclude that the guarantees were illegal under the Executive Order and. 059 is appended to this opinion in its entirety. All quotations in this account are from the complaint or the guarantees. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-1357.htm">00-1357 -- SCHRODER V. BUSH -- 08/24/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM5MjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3926-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court also found that such a claim of preemption is not barred by the Tax Injunction Act. The court also found that such a claim of preemption is not barred by the Tax Injunction Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B05F3200F4BD992288256ECF0057CC71/$file/0235936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The opinion appearing at 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004) is AMENDED as follows: On page 1191. The challenged Ordinances are explicitly intended to combat the secondary effects of adult stores' speech. The district court ruled that the purpose of the Ordinances is to regulate the harmful secondary effects associated with sexually oriented businesses. Preamble/Findings (4)(k) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAAA6273214AA58388256EA000809B6A/$file/0235936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether the City of Spokane's ordinances regulating the location of adult oriented retail businesses ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2301.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An amended opinion is attached hereto. We have consolidated these cases for disposition on appeal. The New Mexico Name maintains that the English judgment stemmed from an action that is repugnant to New Mexico's public policy as the judgment: (a) violates New Mexico's securities laws. (b) is based on unconscionable contracts. (e) is based on illusory contacts. Because the English system of jurisprudence is incompatible with American standards of due process. Two Utah Names also contend that the district court's approval of the English post judgment interest of eight percent per annum was incorrect. We also hold that the Lloyd's judgments are not repugnant to New Mexico's public policy. We hold that the parties in this case are diverse. I. BACKGROUND Numerous courts have summarized the basic facts applicable to the underlying litigation. These facts are not in dispute. Lloyd's is not an insurer. Rather is the regulator of an insurance market located in London. Names are passive investors in the sophisticated scheme. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4304.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND No. 01 4304 Eby Brown is a wholesale distributor of tobacco products. Such that if Eby Brown's tobacco prices are more competitive than other wholesale distributors. It will gain the lion's share of the food item and sundry business. Wisconsin statutes recognize two distinct types of cigarette wholesalers: permit holders and jobbers.1 A permit holder is licensed to affix revenue stamps upon cigarette packages. Jobbers are not permitted to affix such stamps and must instead purchase stamped products from permit holders. EbyBrown is a permit holder. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/93-9426.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GRIGSBY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court instructed that general intent was all that was required to violate the AECA. Because we conclude that the district court's AECA jury instructions were erroneous and incomplete and that the jury's verdicts as to the other wildlife statutes were contrary to the jury instructions and evidence. That he had never issued export permits for African elephant ivory and was unfamiliar with the process.<p> Ashton transferred the original certificates of ownership for two of the ivory tusks. The Canadian Wildlife Service was satisfied that. Because the harvesting was before applicability of CITES. A Canadian export CITES permit was issued on October 20. Since the check was payable to Grigsby Taxidermy instead of Ashton and exceeded the final sales price. Where the certified check was converted to a Canadian bank draft payable to Ashton in Canadian funds. When the United States funds were converted to Canadian funds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033823p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We have before us two cases that have been consolidated on appeal. 1 While the District Courts in these cases both addressed the constitutionality of a New Jersey regulation A third appeal that was originally consolidated. Has been severed and is being resolved in a not precedential opinion. 5 1 governing the processing of incoming inmate legal mail. Do state prisoners have an interest protected by the First Amendment in being present when their incoming legal mail is opened? We conclude that New Jersey has not shown that its legal mail policy is reasonably related to its interest in protecting the safety and security of its prisons. We will affirm the grant of injunctive relief in Allah and reverse the District Court's summary judgment for the defendants in Jones.2 I. New Jersey regulations governing the Department of Corrections required that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991991.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 10 the line is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-4210.htm">99-4210 -- U.S. V. HARDMAN -- 08/08/2001<BR></A><BR> That the Act is enforced in a discriminatory fashion in violation of his equal protection rights. Hardman is not of Native American descent. His ex wife and two children are. His ex wife and children are enrolled members of the S'Kallum Tribe. Hardman was still married to and living with his ex wife. He was informed that he would not be allowed to apply as he was not a member of a federally recognized tribe. <p> Years later. Hardman and his wife were separated. Ute tribal officers were informed by Mr. Officer Murray was a cross commissioned federal law enforcement officer acting under the authority of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Which were hanging from the rear view mirror of his truck. <p> On March 10. Hardman was issued a federal violation notice for possessing golden eagle feathers without a permit in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A bench trial was held before a magistrate judge. Hardman was found guilty of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and sentenced to pay a small fine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/93-9426.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GRIGSBY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court instructed that general intent was all that was required to violate the AECA. Because we conclude that the district court's AECA jury instructions were erroneous and incomplete and that the jury's verdicts as to the other wildlife statutes were contrary to the jury instructions and evidence. That he had never issued export permits for African elephant ivory and was unfamiliar with the process.<p> Ashton transferred the original certificates of ownership for two of the ivory tusks. The Canadian Wildlife Service was satisfied that. Because the harvesting was before applicability of CITES. A Canadian export CITES permit was issued on October 20. Since the check was payable to Grigsby Taxidermy instead of Ashton and exceeded the final sales price. Where the certified check was converted to a Canadian bank draft payable to Ashton in Canadian funds. When the United States funds were converted to Canadian funds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/021649u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over an appeal from a final judgment of conviction and sentencing pursuant to 2 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The factual findings of a district court are subject to review for clear error. A district court's interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines are subject to plenary review. Because the factors the District Court considered were appropriate and the factual findings were not clearly erroneous. We will affirm. Once a deal was reached. Viggiano made efforts to conceal his role in the conspiracy and was not fully forthcoming with investigators. Once a later criminal investigation was begun. Williams was sentenced to 40 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay restitution. His sentence was based on the total loss resulting from the fraud perpetrated by MICOM. Viggiano was sentenced to 44 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Was ordered to pay restitution. Viggiano was granted a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054160p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1436.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Frontera Suau</SPAN> was on brief. S Guillemard Noble</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1605.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sidley & Austin (as it then was) demoted 32 of its equity partners to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36C1CFDD0AEC72828825717600555425/$file/0335864.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A requirement known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971723.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree that the ordinance is constitutional and affirm the judgment of the district court. Minors may participate in any activity during curfew hours if they are accompanied by a parent. The ordinance exempts minors who are engaged in interstate travel. Are on the sidewalk abutting their parents' residence. Or are involved in an emergency. The ordinance does not affect minors who are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6222.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As we are reversing the grant of summary judgment. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210333.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to address two key issues: (1) the effect of the federal rule upon state antitrust law and (2) whether the exem ption extends beyond antitrust prosecutions into the realm of mere investigations. This holding is based upon the Fourth Amendment4 and state law rather than the antitrust exemption. Ct. at 2112 (stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/96-6080.opa.html">FLORIDA SEED CO. V. MONSANTO CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida Seed Co. v. Florida Seed is engaged in wholesale distribution and marketing of lawn and garden products. Kleenup is based on glyphosate. Monsanto stated that the decision was part of a broader strategic decision to use fewer distributors. Florida Seed and Frit then filed this antitrust suit.<p> Plaintiffs allege that Monsanto engaged in monopolization and attempted monopolization of the residential nonselective herbicide market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act by its acquisition of Ortho and its termination of Florida Seed's distributorship.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0035p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant that sought a declaratory judgment that the Ordinance was unconstitutional because it violated the dormant Commerce Clause and a permanent injunction barring Defendant from enforcing the Ordinance against Plaintiff's members. Issued a declaratory judgment that the Ordinance was unconstitutional. B. FACTS The facts are not in dispute. Defendant is a county located in Kentucky. Defendant is responsible for developing and implementing solid waste management plans for the county. Nonexclusive franchises shall be granted to all haulers that are properly registered in accordance with KRS 224.43 315(2). Have properly filed an annual report as required by KRS 224.43 315(3). Are in compliance with all other applicable laws and regulations. Plaintiff is a trade association whose members are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011151.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 25 the reference to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1328.html">NTN BEARING CORPORATION OF AMERICA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/96-6080.opa.html">FLORIDA SEED CO. V. MONSANTO CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida Seed Co. v. Florida Seed is engaged in wholesale distribution and marketing of lawn and garden products. Kleenup is based on glyphosate. Monsanto stated that the decision was part of a broader strategic decision to use fewer distributors. Florida Seed and Frit then filed this antitrust suit.<p> Plaintiffs allege that Monsanto engaged in monopolization and attempted monopolization of the residential nonselective herbicide market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act by its acquisition of Ortho and its termination of Florida Seed's distributorship.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C237E269BC9D58688256C2F005B2403/$file/0117023.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 9856. Judges Graber and Paez have voted to deny the Plaintiffs' petitions for rehearing en banc. The Plaintiffs' petitions for panel rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The Defendant's petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. Which are various insurance companies and a trade association of insurance companies. The main question for decision is this: May California constitutionally require the disclosure of insurance claims related information by an insurance company that is licensed to do business in California even though the required information may be in the hands of a related entity that is located in a foreign country? Requires any insurer doing business in California that sold insurance policies to persons in Europe that were in effect between the years 1920 and 1945 (Holocaust era policies) to file certain information about those policies with the Commissioner.1 Cal. The reporting requirement also applies to insurance companies that do business in California and are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1404.html">BYUNG WU LEE V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>David M. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Joanne Halley</u>. For amicus curiae.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was Daniel F. Lee was a licensed customs broker who failed to timely pay two monetary penalties assessed by the United States Customs Service (". Informing him that Customs was contemplating issuing a $1000 penalty for ". Customs determined that a penalty was still due but mitigated the amount to $250.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </sp </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1500.html">KOYO SEIKO CO., LTD V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> For plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5068.html">PAUL CONTI V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B57D7DFE521B70E088256DFA00012465/$file/0272723.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts are set forth as stipulated by the parties before the Tax Court. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code. 1 BIEHL v. § 56(b)(1)(A)(I) does not allow any miscellaneous deductions.2 What this case boils down to is an effort by the Biehls to circumvent the restrictive. The deductions allowed by this chapter . . . which are attributable to a trade or business carried on by the taxpayer. The court adopted the Regulation's three prong approach to determine whether a deduction is permitted under § 62. A reimbursement arrangement is considered an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2892.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The CHA notified its employees that it was closing the department. Rejecting its argument that the CHA was not a covered employer for purposes of the Act. Like the CHA is subject to the WARN Act.2 The CHA also 1 Plaintiffs represent a class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/15341DC0D6C517F688256BF40072A0AC/$file/0117023.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are various insurance companies and a trade association of insurance companies. The main question for decision is this: May California constitutionally require the disclosure of insurance claims related information by an insurance company that is licensed to do business in California even though the required information may be in the hands of a related entity that is located in a foreign country? Requires any insurer doing business in California that sold insurance policies to persons in Europe that were in effect between the years 1920 and 1945 (Holocaust era policies) to file certain information about those policies with the Commissioner.1 Cal. The reporting requirement also applies to insurance companies that do business in California and are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1165.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 28. Were on brief. Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Will & Emery. (2) make findings regarding allegations of anticompetitive consequences of the merger that were unique to Holyoke. Northeast Utilities Service Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/98-6241.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ODOM (5/31/2001, NO. 98-6241)<BR></A><BR> The church which the Defendants were convicted of burning. Contending that the indictment insufficiently defined the elements of the offense and the jury's verdict was inconsistent. Which was just down the road. (2) natural gas used to heat the church was purchased in Alabama. (4) the church was a dues paying member of the First Eastern Shore Missionary Baptist Church Association. There was no evidence that any member of St. There was no evidence that any interstate traveler had ever visited St. Defense counsel moved to set aside the jury's verdict with respect to the § 844(h)(1) conspiracy conviction on the ground that the verdict was inconsistent. This principle requires that a decision on a constitutional question is appropriate only after addressing the statutory questions. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986241.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The church which the Defendants were convicted of burning. Contending that the indictment insufficiently defined the elements of the offense and the jury's verdict was inconsistent. Which was just down the road. (2) natural gas used to heat the church was purchased in Alabama. (4) the church was a dues paying member of the First Eastern Shore Missionary Baptist Church Association. There was no evidence that any member of St. There was no evidence that any interstate traveler had ever visited St. Defense counsel moved to set aside the jury's verdict with respect to the § 844(h)(1) conspiracy conviction on the ground that the verdict was inconsistent. This principle requires that a decision on a constitutional question is appropriate only after addressing the statutory questions. Rather § 844(i) is limited to buildings used in interstate commerce. Joseph's Church was used in interstate commerce or an activity affecting interstate commerce. The Jones court set forth the method to determine whether damage or destruction of a building is properly prosecutable under § 844(i). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986241.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The church which the Defendants were convicted of burning. Contending that the indictment insufficiently defined the elements of the offense and the jury's verdict was inconsistent. Which was just down the road. (2) natural gas used to heat the church was purchased in Alabama. (4) the church was a dues paying member of the First Eastern Shore Missionary Baptist Church Association. There was no evidence that any member of St. There was no evidence that any interstate traveler had ever visited St. Defense counsel moved to set aside the jury's verdict with respect to the § 844(h)(1) conspiracy conviction on the ground that the verdict was inconsistent. This principle requires that a decision on a constitutional question is appropriate only after addressing the statutory questions. Rather § 844(i) is limited to buildings used in interstate commerce. § 844(i) requires the government to prove that St. 6 Joseph's Church was used in interstate commerce or an activity affecting interstate commerce. The Jones court set forth the method to determine whether damage or destruction of a building is properly prosecutable under § 844(i). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FFF28E68F4D95C8C882572F300826DA5/$file/0655054.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We address whether this generic advertising is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5061.html">THE HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/003698.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court found that neither plan was governed by ERISA and therefore dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As both plans were covered by ERISA. The Profit Sharing Trust was funded through a rollover of William's assets from profit sharing and pension plans from two prior jobs. The Profit Sharing Plan provided that distributions from the plan were to be made as a joint and survivor annuity. Distributions from the Pension Trust were to be made as joint and survivor annuities. The assets from these IRAs were distributed to the Insurance Trust. As well as an order compelling the trustees of the Insurance Trust to obtain a refund of inheritance taxes paid on the assets that were transferred to William's IRAs. The District Court held that neither the Profit Sharing Plan nor the Pension Plan was governed by ERISA and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by order entered August 15. Plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend this order was denied on October 3. Was substituted for Evelyn as a plaintiff. 2. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/98-6241.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ODOM (5/31/2001, NO. 98-6241)<BR></A><BR> The church which the Defendants were convicted of burning. Contending that the indictment insufficiently defined the elements of the offense and the jury's verdict was inconsistent. Which was just down the road. (2) natural gas used to heat the church was purchased in Alabama. (4) the church was a dues paying member of the First Eastern Shore Missionary Baptist Church Association. There was no evidence that any member of St. There was no evidence that any interstate traveler had ever visited St. Defense counsel moved to set aside the jury's verdict with respect to the § 844(h)(1) conspiracy conviction on the ground that the verdict was inconsistent. This principle requires that a decision on a constitutional question is appropriate only after addressing the statutory questions. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-7304.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel on the brief was Michael P. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were David J. Concluding that she was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2359.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ciechon Jr. were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. That concern is not allayed by the agency's explanation for its decision. The result is so odd that either the EPA has abused its discretion or it has explained itself so poorly as to require further justification. The permitting regime is a hybrid one in which both EPA and the counterpart state agency play a role. No such delegation is present here. Puerto Rico is treated as a state for purposes of the Clean Water Act. Its local agency is the Environmental Quality Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1E00D3A54B62AA288256EC90056C8FF/$file/0216619.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA v. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001. Perhaps the culmination of this rethinking was California's decision in 1996 to initiate an aggressive market experiment to deregulate and to restructure its electricity markets. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021166.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eisenberg was the victim of a fraudulent investment scheme perpetrated by Douglas Walter Reid ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1269.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Neal S. Of counsel on the brief were Maurice M. Of counsel was Scott E. With him on the brief were James A. Of counsel on the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief were Nicholas N. With him on the brief was Joshua R. Of counsel on the brief was J. Of counsel was Herbert C. With him on the brief were Robert C. Of counsel on the brief were Robert D. With him on the brief was Richard J. Of counsel on the brief were William J. With him on the brief were Kurt M. Of counsel on the brief were Ned A. John Will Ongman. With him on the brief was Alice O. Of counsel on the brief was Stephan E. With him on the brief was Mary Jo Boldingh. Of counsel on the brief was Charles F. Of counsel with him on the brief were Patrick G. Of counsel on the brief was John P. With him on the brief were Frank L. Of counsel on the brief were Jeremy P. With him on the brief were Joseph A. With him on the brief were Matthew S. With him on the brief was David R. Of counsel on the brief were Denise W. With him on the brief were John C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052336p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court then conducted a six day 1 Although the members of the Board have been sued individually in their official capacities. Yet this apparent simplicity is deceptive. 1344 (6th Cir. 1994) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C855049FE707ED5E88256E0F005D00AB/$file/0115764.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> JOSEPH is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1242.html">CONSOLIDATED EDISON V. O'LEARY<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7949A3E48BDCFB2F88256DA90052E74F/$file/0117049.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The parties' joint motion for corrections to opinion is GRANTED. Is further amended as follows: 1. Replace the last sentence of the last paragraph beginning: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7F10399F447011D388256D980059DA50/$file/0117049.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Delete Footnote 4. Praying for relief under California's Unfair Competition Law ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5428a.html">STDNT LOAN MKT ASSN V. RILEY RICHARD<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EDB288C254B386D6882572DF00003A7A/$file/0530590.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is secured to them. At issue in this appeal is whether the Government's basis for maintaining a CCTA prosecution against the Smiskins their alleged failure to comply with the State of Washington's requirement that individuals give notice to state officials prior to transporting unstamped cigarettes within the State violated the Right to Travel provision of the Yakama Treaty. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Background Defendants Kato and Harry Smiskin are members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/97-5010a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lehrfeld were on the briefs. Were on the brief. The district court granted summary judgment for the IRS on the ground that the material sought was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2FF47A06B5F73CE888256D8A007D450D/$file/0117049.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Praying for relief under California's Unfair Competition Law ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5007.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Edward D. Of counsel was David C. With him on the brief were Peter D. After the contract work was completed. TEG alleged that it was entitled to additional compensation under the contract based upon its removal of excessive quantities of asbestos. The Geneva Towers were two high rise apartment buildings in San Francisco. HUD solicited bids on a contract for asbestos abatement and TEG was awarded the contract on May 8. The deadline for finishing the abatement was changed to February 15. This delay was purportedly caused at least in part by disagreements between TEG and HUD over contract requirements. The parties disagreed as to (i) whether the contract required TEG to abate asbestos in the pores and cracks of the Geneva Towers' surfaces and (ii) whether TEG was required to comply with the contract specifications rather than TEG's work plan. Friable materials are capable. The original asbestos abatement standard was set forth at Section 2080. Shall be cleaned to a degree that no traces of debris or residue are visible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/02-1294a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-2180.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. MOGHADAM (5/19/1999, NO. 98-2180)<BR></A><BR> Appellant Ali Moghadam was convicted of violating that law (herein sometimes referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972192.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Employees of the United States Department of Justice were subpoenaed to testify in a state criminal prosecution in direct contravention of DOJ regulations. His purpose was to compel their testimony at trial and to compel production by the Government of his Confidential Informant file in order to facilitate preparation of his defense to state narcotics charges. I. Appellees Andrea Smith and Gregory Welsh are Assistant United States Attorneys for the District of Maryland. Appellee Larry Hornstein is a special Agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/09/053803P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs are current and former firefighters for the City of Aberdeen. Who have sued the City to recover overtime pay that they claim is due them under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Both sides agreed that no facts were in dispute and moved for summary judgment. Concluding that the FLSA's plain language prevents the payment of overtime wages to those who have not actually worked. Because the relevant facts are not in dispute and the judgment is final. The plaintiffs were often scheduled to work more hours than the FLSA permits an employee to work without receiving overtime pay. This kind of arrangement is common among firefighters and is permissible under the FLSA so long as it is voluntary and done with the employer's permission. 29 U.S.C. § 207(p)(3). The amount that the substitute receives is fixed by private agreement between the two employees. It refused to pay them the overtime to which the FLSA plainly would have entitled them had they worked the shifts themselves. The law provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3083_025.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His claim is wholly unrelated to the vehicle's odometer or mileage. We agree with the 2 No. 04 3083 district court that an Odometer Act claim that is brought by a private party and is based on a violation of § 580.5(c) requires proof that the vehicle's transferor intended to defraud a transferee with respect to mileage. 258 was accurate. (2) that the violation was committed with intent to defraud. That its intent in withholding the title was fraudulent. Discussion Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence presented by the parties </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-2180.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. MOGHADAM (5/19/1999, NO. 98-2180)<BR></A><BR> Appellant Ali Moghadam was convicted of violating that law (herein sometimes referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1501.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Will E. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Berniece A. (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/98-6857.man.html">RANCH HOUSE, INC. V. AMERSON (1/17/2001, NO. 98-6857)<BR></A><BR> We conclude that the wisest course is to remand this case to permit further argument and development of the record on several critical issues. Including Defendants' claim that § 200.11 is intended to combat the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9BFCC98B625BF90588256F3B007B5118/$file/0216619.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. 2004 is hereby amended as follows: At page 8863 of the slip opinion. Delete the parenthetical quotation and add the following two sentences at the conclusion of footnote 17 as follows: At issue are not state regulatory schemes for employment discrimination. Which might indirectly and unintentionally have some possible effect on energy prices. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/031626p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because that denial was predicated on legal error and improper findings of evidentiary deficiency. I. Camphill Soltane is a non profit organization. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1082.html">LTV STEEL CO., V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were John R. Of counsel were Michael H. Also of counsel on the brief were John J. With him on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief were Stephen J. With him on the brief was William C. Of counsel was Mary P. With him on the brief was Marc E. Of counsel was Kara K. Only if its debt burden were alleviated. Commerce maintained that subsidies travel to a private or privatized company unless they are repaid. Commerce determined that the governments' RZV forgiveness was a subsidy benefiting SVK. Which Dillinger maintained was zero. Commerce determined that the debt forgiveness by private banks constituted a countervailable subsidy because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/98-6857.man.html">RANCH HOUSE, INC. V. AMERSON (1/17/2001, NO. 98-6857)<BR></A><BR> We conclude that the wisest course is to remand this case to permit further argument and development of the record on several critical issues. Including Defendants' claim that § 200.11 is intended to combat the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/98-7068a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were David E. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Fannie Mae claims that Martini's Title VII suit was untimely because she initiated it less than 180 days after she filed discrimina tion charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Com mission. Since Martini's claims on cross appeal are fully briefed and likely to arise again in a new trial. Holding first that frontpay is not subject to Title VII's cap on compensatory damages. Second that the district court should have reallocated the portion of Title VII damages above the statutory cap to Martini's recovery under D.C. law. She was earning $71. Excluding her from meetings to which she should have been invited. Kobayashi was asked by Knight to reorganize his department. That [an appropriate Commission official] has determined that it is probable that the Commis sion will be unable to complete its administrative processing of the charge within 180 days from the filing of the charge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4270.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One of the issues before the district court was whether the ordinance was properly supported as targeting the untoward </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/012210.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this case is whether the dormant Commerce Clause allows a state to impose wholesale price floors that shield in state businesses from more efficient out of state competitors. Which are designed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200111/01-5125a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Joseph F. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. With him on the brief was Philip A. Appellant argues that the Food and Drug Administration's decision to approve intervenor defendant Baker Norton Pharmaceutical's Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a generic version of the cancer treatment Taxol was arbitrary and capricious. I. This case is here for the second time. American Bioscience is a pharmaceutical research firm that has developed a patented process for delivering safer and more effective dosage forms of Taxol. Who are corporate affiliates and hold * Senior Judge Williams was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. The NDA is expensive and time consuming. A firm that wished to make a generic version of an approved drug was required to file a new NDA. NDAs are required to contain a list of any patents which claim the drug or which claim a method of using such a drug and with respect to which a claim of patent infringement could reason ably be asserted but that includes patents held by those other than the NDA holder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1813p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A student athlete is eligible to participate in intercollegiate athletics for a total of four seasons within a five year period. The NCAA concludes that her Title IX claim is moot. Smith's Title IX claim is not moot although her period of eligibility has expired because she retains a claim for damages. 1889 (1984) (holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim). States that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1890p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the decision of the district court. 1. Is hereby declared to be illegal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTYxNjItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6162-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Appellee cross appeals the district court's finding that Plaintiff met its burden of production showing that the information at issue was in the public domain. Inner City Press/Community on the Move ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5125a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eagle argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTYxNjItY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-6162-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Appellee cross appeals the district court's finding that Plaintiff met its burden of production showing that the information at issue was in the public domain. Inner City Press/Community on the Move ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/12/031438P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude the DOL's interpretation of the Standard is unreasonable. Advanta is responsible for detasseling1 and harvesting the crop. Detasseling is a critical part of the hybrid seed corn production process. A terrain exception exists to the one quarter mile walk requirement: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="114"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1078.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</U> were on brief. Were on brief. BACKGROUND</STRONG></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110216.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The proposed connection will allow Beaulieu to bypass Dalton. Dalton contends that FERC's orders are unlawful for several reasons. Including that they violate Southern's tariff and that they were impermissible under various sections of the Natural Gas Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1621p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether the over the counter customer order execution practices of several large stock brokers constituted securities fraud. The district court concluded that these practices were not fraudulent and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We will affirm. I. The facts of this case are set forth thoroughly in the district court's opinion. Plaintiffs are investors who purchase and sell so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-5229.htm">98-5229 -- WALKER V. U.S. -- 02/04/2000<BR></A><BR> The district court determined that the Walkers were entitled to a refund of $42. We reverse. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/991324.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Enough is Enough. At issue is COPA's constitutionality. A statute designed to protect minors from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/03DAA4FEA6CBE72F882571CA0048EE0C/$file/0435715.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Exempts an insider from § 16(b) liability when the transaction takes place with the issuer and is specifically approved by the issuer's board of directors or majority of shareholders. 17 C.F.R. § 240.16b 3(d). Dreiling claims TRS was an insider. That Rule 16b 3(d) can not apply to TRS because the InfoSpace board did not know that TRS was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0711p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that the ACGME's conduct was not state action. We will reverse. Which is commonly referred to as a residency. Is defined in the Act as training approved or recognized by the board which is either: (1) accredited as graduate medical education by any accrediting body recognized by the board for the purpose of accrediting graduate medical education. . . . Or (2) provided by a hospital accredited by any accrediting body recognized by the board and is acceptable to an American specialty board towards the training it requires for the certification it issues in a medical specialty or subspecialty. . . . Are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2002/01-14780.opn.html">COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N V. FITZGERALD & CO. (10/29/2002, NO. 01-14780)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1407.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are engaged in exporting meat products and animal hides. Colorado office routinely altered export certificates issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in order to avoid obtaining replacement certificates for which the company should have paid a fee. Reasoning that Conagra's alleged </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/01-10216.opn.html">BOARD OF WATER, LIGHT AND SINKING FUND COMMISSIONERS V. FED. ENERGY REGULATORY COMM'N (6/20/20002, NO. 01-10216)<BR></A><BR> The proposed connection will allow Beaulieu to bypass Dalton. Dalton contends that FERC's orders are unlawful for several reasons. Including that they violate Southern's tariff and that they were impermissible under various sections of the Natural Gas Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1260p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold the Amendment was a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. Was enacted by Congress in 1895. Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation that was engaged in the business of taking orders for. Pic A State's operations were designed to avoid the longstanding prohibition on the interstate traffic in lottery tickets by keeping the tickets themselves in the state of origin and transferring only a computer generated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2695.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. S ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/01-10216.opn.html">BOARD OF WATER, LIGHT AND SINKING FUND COMMISSIONERS V. FED. ENERGY REGULATORY COMM'N (6/20/20002, NO. 01-10216)<BR></A><BR> The proposed connection will allow Beaulieu to bypass Dalton. Dalton contends that FERC's orders are unlawful for several reasons. Including that they violate Southern's tariff and that they were impermissible under various sections of the Natural Gas Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc0MDhfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7408_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are presented with a simple set of facts on this appeal. A shipper's goods were damaged in transit. While the facts are simple. The statutory and regulatory context in which this case arises is complex and presents a question that is one of first impression in this and other circuits. That question is whether 49 U.S.C. § 13906(a)(3) (2000) (amended 2005). We are faced on this appeal with a situation where two parallel channels leading to the harbor were merged into one to provide a wider and more navigable trench through 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 which all ships may travel. The question we must answer is whether it was permissible for the Harbor Master to continue to impose this requirement. show. These groups included the We think it was. As the following discussion will Inland Marine Underwriters Association in support of the insurer. That the agency's discretion is entitled to deference. It is necessary to establish the legislative and regulatory framework in which this appeal must be decided. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2002/01-14780.opn.html">COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N V. FITZGERALD & CO. (10/29/2002, NO. 01-14780)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EE4D2E5B42A85E5D88256BB8007E2C84/$file/0056913.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal presents the question of whether tax deferred variable annuities are covered securities under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/01-11376.opn.html">PATTON V. TRIAD GUAR. INS. (1/2/2002, NO. 01-11376)<BR></A><BR> Patton claimed that she was wrongfully required to obtain mortgage insurance from Triad as a result of the illegal kickback scheme between Premier and Triad. Because Patton was financing more than 80% of the home's value. Were never passed on to Triad's consumers. The district court determined that the claim was barred by § 1012 of the McCarran Ferguson Act. 694 (11th Cir. 1998). </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114780.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Presented in this appeal is the question of liability for fraud and related allegations under the Commodities Exchange Act. We will reverse as to Raymond Fitzgerald. Alleging that they were involved in fraudulent solicitations to attract potential customers throughout the United States to invest in commodity options. In violation of the Act and related federal regulations.1 This Complaint was dismissed essentially for failure to plead fraud with particularity. Defendant Raymond Fitzgerald was charged with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/01-11376.opn.html">PATTON V. TRIAD GUAR. INS. (1/2/2002, NO. 01-11376)<BR></A><BR> Patton claimed that she was wrongfully required to obtain mortgage insurance from Triad as a result of the illegal kickback scheme between Premier and Triad. Because Patton was financing more than 80% of the home's value. Were never passed on to Triad's consumers. The district court determined that the claim was barred by § 1012 of the McCarran Ferguson Act. 694 (11th Cir. 1998). </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021432.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are 4 BESKIND v. Who are permitted to sell and ship their wine directly to consumers. The district court held that North Carolina's ABC laws unconstitutionally discriminated against out of state wine manufacturers and sellers and were not saved by the Twenty first Amendment. The structure in North Carolina is a familiar three tiered one in which out ofstate sellers of alcoholic beverages may sell their alcoholic beverages only to licensed wholesalers. North Carolina General Statutes § 18B 102.1 provides that it is unlawful </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/92-4764.html">GOLD COAST PUBLICATIONS V. CORRIGAN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gold Coast Publications v. A newspaper publisher contends that the Ordinance is a facially invalid abridgment of the newspaper's rights of free speech and free press under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and comparable provisions of the Florida Constitution. The district court concluded that the Ordinance was facially valid except for three provisions that require the use of a particular make and model of newsrack or its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM2MDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3606-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was awarded compensatory damages for lost earnings. At least to the extent such earnings were based on pay rates in the United States rather than in the worker's native country. Affordable and Mountain are now joined by third party defendant Silva. 3 In addition. Arguing that the document relied on by these third party plaintiffs to support their indemnification claim is not an enforceable contract. Is not authorized by IRCA under any circumstance. (2) it was the employer rather than the worker who knowingly violated IRCA in arranging for the employment. (3) the jury was instructed to consider the worker's removeability in deciding what. Because we conclude that appellants' and cross appellants' other arguments are also without merit. Madeira's Employment and Injury Plaintiff Jose Raimundo Madeira 1 is a citizen of Brazil who illegally entered the United States in 1998. Madeira was earning approximately $15 per hour in the United States and working as many as 50 hours per week. Such action was apparently unnecessary given his brother's willingness to hire him despite knowing Madeira's undocumented status. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214037.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * This is an antitrust action brought pursuant to section 1 of the Sherman Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992331.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was included to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216135.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are compelled to agree with Alabama and must decline the ACLU's invitation. I. BACKGROUND Because the various user appellees and vendor appellees are all represented by the ACLU. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1305.html">SKF USA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0687D58B67D250C1882569F200007858/$file/9956676.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge McKeown Judge Hug was drawn to replace Judge Canby. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9DC62098E608277388256E5A00707A5B/$file/9956676.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge McKeown Judge Hug was drawn to replace Judge Canby. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/92-4764.html">GOLD COAST PUBLICATIONS V. CORRIGAN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gold Coast Publications v. A newspaper publisher contends that the Ordinance is a facially invalid abridgment of the newspaper's rights of free speech and free press under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and comparable provisions of the Florida Constitution. The district court concluded that the Ordinance was facially valid except for three provisions that require the use of a particular make and model of newsrack or its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/00-1100c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Robert S. Asserting that they are overin clusive or. The Commission is to grant a broadcast license only if the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/002788P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue in this case is whether certain provisions of Missouri law are preempted by the Employee's Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Arguing that the Missouri provisions could not be enforced because they were preempted by ERISA. I. The Missouri legislation which led to this lawsuit was enacted in 1997. A maintenance prescription is one providing medication to treat a medical condition for a period of greater than 30 days. If any such contract is rejected by any pharmacy provider. 3 unless such limit is applied uniformly to all pharmacy providers in the health maintenance organization's network. Are preempted by ERISA. After discovery was complete. That the existence of ERISA plans is not essential to their operation. It also concluded that the statutes were saved from ERISA preemption because they regulate HMOs which are in the business of insurance. They say that the statutes are within the scope of ERISA preemption because they relate to employee benefit plans since they directly regulate health benefit plans and impact plan structure. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2CC6AB3061DC033688256E5A00707A4B/$file/9956676.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge McKeown Judge Hug was drawn to replace Judge Canby. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1100c.html">GREG RUGGIERO V. FCC<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for respondents.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were Robert S. Asserting that they are overin clusive or. The Federal Radio Commission).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>See 47 U.S.C. s 301.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Commission is to grant a broadcast license only if the ". It was clear to the Commission that action needed to be taken to stop unlicensed broadcast ing. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In 1999 the Commission proposed to modify its low power radio rules and sought public comment upon whether it should ". 1999) set out in the Low Power Proposal.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Id. at p p 53 54.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This licensing condition for broadcast pirates was applicable both to individuals and to corporate applicants. Including the applicant's officers and directors.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Id. at p 54. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Commission's proposal conditionally to license former pirates was received with dismay in the Congress.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Senator Gregg. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5A9CE43B630CAE8A882569F200608B6E/$file/9956676.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge McKeown Judge Hug was drawn to replace Judge Canby. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0259p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 have contested the Plaintiffs Saginaw Bay Pipeline Company and CMS Saginaw Bay Comp any formed a limited business partnership known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7165a.html">BROWN ANTHONY ET AL V. PRO FTBL INC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-4090.htm">96-4090 -- V-1 OIL CO. V. UTAH STATE DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY -- 12/22/1997<BR></A><BR> At issue are V 1's facilities in Preston. V 1's vendors deliver propane to its storage facilities either by train or truck. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> None of V 1's facilities or customers are served by pipeline. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 99 100.<u></u> <p> <u> </u>Most of V 1's customers. Are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-1277.htm">02-1277 -- KIDNEIGH V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 10/03/2003<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5141r.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were Eric J. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Rafael A. On the brief was Joseph S. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Rafael A. Provides benefits to the relatives of public safety officers who are killed as the result of injuries sustained in the line of duty. The statute also provides benefits to public safety officers who are permanently disabled. Educational benefits to dependents of federal law enforcement officers who are killed or disabled in the line of duty. Whether the decedent was a public safety officer who died under circumstances that entitle the beneficiaries to an award under the statute. 42 U.S.C. § 3796(a). Judicial review of the BJA's decisions is available in the Court of Federal Claims. This is a consolidated appeal from two decisions of the Court of Federal Claims. The two cases both involve challenges to BJA determinations denying death benefits to the relatives of pilots who were employed by private contractors and who died while rendering fire suppression assistance to public agencies. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1191.html">CAMPANHIA BRASILIERA CARBURETO DE CALCIO V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Stephen J. With him on the brief were <U>William D. The sole question presented in this appeal is whether section 1677b requires the inclusion of Brazilian value added taxes when determining the constructed value of exported goods. Were selling their products at less than fair value. <U>See</U> <U>Initiation of </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1767.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As he is the United States</CENTER> </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2553.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for movants. Were on brief for defendants. Brewster</SPAN> were on brief for plaintiff. Were on brief for defendants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/002428.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the orders of the district court. Is the founder and majority shareholder of two small capitalization medical services businesses EquiMed. The average market price was computed by taking the average of the stock's closing prices for the five days immediately prior to the exchange request. The structure of the second note ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1160p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge In this appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court we are asked to decide if a valuable bass violin can be depreciated under the Accelerated Cost Recovery System when used as a tool of trade by a professional musician even though the instrument actually increased in value while the musician owned it. Is a very accomplished professional musician. A luthier who was active in Cremona. These artisans were members of a group of instrument makers known as the Cremonese School. The instrument was then in an excellent state of restoration and had no apparent cracks or other damage. This instrument was his principal instrument and he used it continuously to earn his living. Cracking the wood such that it could not be played until it was repaired. Basses are more likely to become damaged when used as performance instruments than when displayed in a museum. Professional musicians who use valuable instruments as their performance instruments are exposed to financial risks that do not threaten collectors who regard such instruments as works of art. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Tracey L. Of counsel was Maureen A. The trial court ruled there was no significant prejudice to Bannum. Past performance on other government contracts was the most important criteria. The CEFs are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/01/001188P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The liquid and powder ingredients are mixed together. Was scrutinized by FDA doctors and representatives. Or she was positioned nearby as another nurse mixed the cement. She was diagnosed with asthma. Though the doctor was unable to conclude that Simplex was the cause of Brooks's asthma. Was thereafter restricted from exposure to Simplex. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party demonstrates that there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court ruled that Howmedica was entitled to summary judgment because Brooks's state law failure to warn claim was preempted by federal law. The MDA contains an express preemption provision that governs federal preemption of state law with respect to medical devices: [N]o State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement (1) which is different from. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1998/98a1990p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal is from the dismissal of all counts of a complaint filed by Crossroads Cogeneration Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1CB92EF5AD825DA188256CCA0011916F/$file/0215416.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> AT&T appeals on the ground that the application of California's consumer protection laws is preempted by the Federal Communications Act and the Federal Arbitration Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The 1934 Act was intended to address the unique problems inherent in a monopolistic environment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1096.html">ALLEGHENY LUDLUM CORP V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David A. Argued for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0904p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeals from the district court's declaration that section 9(c) and 9.1 of Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Act 8 of 1993 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-2199.htm">98-2199 -- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION V. JOHNSON -- 11/02/1999<BR></A><BR> Which criminalizes the dissemination by computer of material that is harmful to minors. Had demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that section . Which provides as follows: <p> 30 37 3.2 Dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer <p> A. Dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer consists of the use of a computer communications system that allows the input. Whoever commits dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer is guilty of a misdemeanor. <p> The statute provides the following defenses: <p> In a prosecution for dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer. It is a defense that the defendant has: <ol> <li> in good faith taken reasonable. Including any method that is feasible with available technology. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972914P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> NSP argued that the fuel assemblies were placed in service when NSP acquired them because they were fully assembled and destined for use in an existing nuclear power plant. It was merely correcting mistakes on its 1985 and 1986 tax returns. Continues to argue that it was correcting a mistake. I. The material facts are not in dispute. Because the pertinent facts for each issue are entirely separate. These operating cycles are sequentially numbered. The first ten to sixteen months that Prairie Island I produced power is referred to as Cycle 1. The next ten to sixteen month period following refueling is referred to as Cycle 2. The removal and replacement of the fuel assemblies is staggered: that is. For each cycle the core is composed of one third new fuel assemblies. Once the reactor is shut down. It includes the following steps: new fuel assemblies are moved from the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA5MTctYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0917-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Board further found that petitioner's testimony was not credible because he had submitted a fraudulent document in support of his application. Sitting by designation. 1 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 We conclude that the government violated petitioner's right to confidentiality by providing to the Chinese government a document from which it could reasonably infer that petitioner was in the United States seeking asylum. The Board's finding that Lin was not credible is without substantial evidentiary support because its sole basis for the finding is an unreliable report from the United States Consulate in Guangzhou. The petition is GRANTED. The Board's decision is VACATED. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The IJ found that Lin's story of imprisonment and political persecution was credible and that he qualified for asylum and withholding of removal. Stating that the certificate of release from prison (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-5221a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Watson were on brief. Were on brief. M. Reed Hopper was on brief for amicus curiae Pacific Legal Foundation in support of the appellants. Permits are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AEC1A9FBFB8AC71288256FD5006A829E/$file/0456072.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: The second paragraph on slip op. 1131. Line 3: the words </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1029a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>With her on the brief were David M. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Voss' chal <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>lenge depends solely upon the exoneration of Graham.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Be <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>cause we conclude that the Commission's decision was reason <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>able and supported by substantial evidence. </o:p></pre><pre><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Voss is the owner and president of an independent discount <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>brokerage firm. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Virginia.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Graham began working in the securities industry in <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>1982 and joined VCI in September of 1984.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>She was a <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>registered representative. 1 as well as VCI's cashier and back <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>office assistant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>She was also VCI's primary ". </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkxNzkgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-9179%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The three plaintiffs appellants are Grand River Enterprises Six Nations. Defendants appellees are thirty one current and former state attorneys general sued in their official capacities. Appellants argue that these dismissals were erroneous. Which was necessary to permit this appeal to be heard. We conclude that the district court was correct in granting Rule 54(b) The five territories are American Samoa. The result was a Master Settlement Agreement. Previously settled with twenty two of the states and was not party to the MSA. Which manufactured approximately 97.5% of all The cigarettes sold in the country when the MSA was signed. Are referred to in the MSA as Original Participating Manufacturers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkxNzlfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9179_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The three plaintiffs appellants are Grand River Enterprises Six Nations. Defendants appellees are thirty one current and former state attorneys general sued in their official capacities. Appellants argue that these dismissals were erroneous. Which was necessary to permit this appeal to be heard. We conclude that the district court was correct in granting Rule 54(b) The five territories are American Samoa. The result was a Master Settlement Agreement. Previously settled with twenty two of the states and was not party to the MSA. Which manufactured approximately 97.5% of all The cigarettes sold in the country when the MSA was signed. Are referred to in the MSA as Original Participating Manufacturers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021243pe.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judges This is an appeal in a copyright case. Holding that Southco was unlikely to succeed on the merits because the serial numbers lacked sufficient originality to be copyrighted. Holding that an affidavit submitted by Southco in opposition to Kanebridge's summary judgment motion was sufficient to demonstrate that the numbers reflected considerable creativity. We now hold that the numbers are not protected by copyright. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/89B1D6A9A0A8096F882572FF0081653B/$file/0457134.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The named plaintiffs in this case (whom we will call </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/832B8C120133166A88256F95000427F2/$file/0456072.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These findings are based on studies and police declarations from other jurisdictions. CITY OF LA HABRA The Appellants are Bill Badi Gammoh. The case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Appellants were unsuccessful before the district court. Close up performances using the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200008/99-1029a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were David M. Be cause we conclude that the Commission's decision was reason able and supported by substantial evidence. I Voss is the owner and president of an independent discount brokerage firm. She was a registered representative. She was also VCI's primary </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0055p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Douglas is a former United Auto Workers International servicing representative. Jay Campbell is a former United Auto Workers Local 594 Chairman. The terms of employment for Pontiac employees are set forth in the National Agreement between General Motors and International United Auto Workers and in the Local Agreement between Pontiac and Local 594. Skilled tradesmen are hired according to a scale of preference: most preferred are skilled trade employees. Next are current company employees who are qualified under the National Agreement. After that are current company employees. Outside applicants who do not meet the requirements set forth in the National Agreement are accorded no preference. The charges against Douglas and Campbell are based on their conduct during contract negotiations for the Local Agreement between United Auto Workers Local 594 and General Motors. The son in law of a former Local 594 official who were not employees of Pontiac or General Motors and were not qualified under the National Agreement as skilled tradesmen into skilled trade positions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F31BC7CFC2E61F36882572BA0076FFCD/$file/0256256.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER Rio Tinto's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is granted in part. Are hereby withdrawn. A superseding opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order. Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1999.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief. With whom Thompson & Bowie was on brief. The first is the 1997 Ordinance itself. Although the Town's contractor is permitted to dispose of collected trash at any proper disposal site. Residents who choose to self haul are required to take their refuse to a repository designated by the Town Council. 28 U.S.C. 1331 there is no other readily apparent jurisdictional basis the plaintiffs challenged the 1997 Ordinance under. Concluding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits. The court subsequently granted summary judgment for the Town on the four claims with which we are concerned. An unincorporated nonprofit association that was formed. Two respected courts recently have held that individual garbage generators lacked standing to challenge schemes similar to Houlton's under the Commerce Clause. These courts emphasized that the purpose of the dormant Commerce Clause is to curtail states' abilities to hinder interstate trade. That the injury claimed by the individual garbage generators being compelled to pay higher prices for services they neither required nor desired was not even marginally related to this purpose. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/001188P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was dismissed on summary judgment after the district court1 concluded that her claim was preempted by federal law. A petition for rehearing en banc was granted. The panel opinion was vacated. I. Carol Jean Brooks is a licensed practical nurse whose work as a surgical technician included mixing bone cement. Bone cement is used to bond with a bone or prosthesis in replacements. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 21 1992 she was mixing bone cement or was close to the mixing process during approximately ten surgeries a week. Although Brooks is unable to identify the brand of bone cement used at St. It is undisputed that St. Which was manufactured and marketed by appellees (collectively Howmedica).2 Brooks began to cough at some time in 1989 or 1990. She went to see a doctor about it in 1991 when she was told she had asthma. The restriction included methyl methacrylate which is an ingredient in Simplex. Brooks was later diagnosed to have occupational asthma caused by exposure to methyl methacrylate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-4245.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal presents the question whether speculative transactions in foreign currency are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3844.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The cold war was over but the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Williams was also convicted of possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Because there was no reversible Booker error. Which was later traced to the defendant Williams. Who LNM claimed was her daughter. When these pictures were not received. The message was followed by a computer hyperlink. The nude children in the photos were approximately five to fifteen years old. Williams was charged with one count of promoting. Or that is intended to cause another to believe. Williams was also charged with one count of possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Williams filed a motion to dismiss the pandering charge on the grounds that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. While the motion was pending before the trial court. There are two types of child pornography. Child pornography images of both types are typically circulated through the Internet. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/001823.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This evidence suggested that Appellee was a member of a terrorist organization. Was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and had made threats against Attorney General Janet Reno. Were not 3 substantially justified. The EAJA provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021337.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As follows: On page 9 the designation for the footnote is corrected. Line 8 the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/011094.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court dismissed plaintiff 's TILA count for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.1 We will reverse and remand. 1. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Because this is an appeal from the granting of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). We may affirm only if it is certain that no relief could be granted under any set of facts which could be proven. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034253.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All of which are connected to his support of Hizballah. The appeal was argued before a three judge panel. I. Facts The facts underlying Hammoud's convictions and sentence are largely undisputed. A. Hizballah Hizballah is an organization founded by Lebanese Shi'a Muslims in response to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel. It is also a strong opponent of Western presence in the Middle East. Hizballah is particularly opposed to the existence of Israel and to the activities of the American government in the Middle East. Hizballah's general secretary is Hassan Nasserallah. Its spiritual leader is Sheikh Fadlallah. While the asylum application was pending. Where his brothers and cousins were living. While the North Carolina tax is only 50¢. It is estimated that the conspiracy involved a quantity of cigarettes valued at roughly $7.5 million and that the state of Michigan was deprived of $3 million in tax revenues. These services were often conducted at Hammoud's home. Hammoud who is acquainted with both Nasserallah and Fadlallah. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="107"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2001/01-10829.opn.html">GILBERT V. ALTA HEALTH & LIFE INS. CO. (12/27/2001, NO. 01-10829)<BR></A><BR> We hold that Alabama's bad faith law is not saved from preemption by the saving clause. That a sole shareholder can be a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="107"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI4MjVfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2825_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Complicating this question is not only the ambiguity of Rule 14a 8(i)(8) itself but also the fact that the Securities Exchange Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="107"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzODUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6385-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge.** Appeal by plaintiff school from district court's ruling that the Department of Education was authorized by statute to determine the liability of the school to the Department in an administrative hearing. That the school was estopped from relitigating the determinations made at the administrative hearing. United States Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings is automatically substituted for former United States Secretary of Education Richard W. The Clerk of the Court is requested to amend the official caption to match the above. Ruling that the Department was authorized to conduct an administrative proceeding to assess liability against the School. There is no material distinction between the Department of Education and the Secretary of Education. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="107"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-7168.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel was Donald E. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were David J. No other aspect of the court's decision is on appeal. A VA regional office ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="107"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/003424p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As will be seen. We summarily will resolve the substantive issue before us which we find not to be difficult. Have sought indemnification from the approximately 50 appellees ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="107"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2398.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLC</SPAN> was on brief. Will &. Were on brief. No permit was forthcoming. I. While the suit was pending. We hold that the Fish Pier is a non public forum. That the leafletting ban which is content neutral and reasonable in light of the uses to which the pier is put is a valid exercise of governmental authority. We hold that Massport's permit requirement is valid on its face: the neoteric regulations sufficiently limit official discretion and the restrictions imposed are both content neutral and narrowly tailored.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="107"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0207p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The city expressly permits the distribution of written materials to private residences if the literature </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="107"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-3007.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER Were on the brief for appellant.
	99-2011 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PUEBLO OF SAN JUAN -- 01/11/2002 Judge BRISCOE is filing a concurring opinion. Judge LUCERO is filing a concurring opinion by which he joins Parts I. These actions were challenged by the instant declaratory judgment and injunction suit brought by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) and Local Union No. 1385 of the Western Council of Industrial Workers (the Union) as an intervenor. The Board and the intervening Union brought this appeal from the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Pueblo. I The relevant facts are undisputed. San Juan Pueblo is a federally recognized Indian tribe located in New Mexico. 200 members live on tribal lands that are held in trust by the United States for the Pueblo. The Pueblo is governed by a tribal council. Which is vested with legislative authority over tribal lands. Is described in the District Court's opinion. NLRB v. The ordinance in substance is a so called
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Jonathan A. Bullard were on the brief for amici curiae Consumer Federal of America and Fund Democracy. Speyer was on the brief for amicus curiae Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association in support of petitioner. 2 Rex A. Staples was on the brief for amicus curiae North American Securities Administrators Association. With her on the brief were Brian G. Circuit Judge: Brokers and dealers are not subject to the requirements of the Investment Advisers Act (
	OPINION/ORDER Miller is substituted for her predecessor as Regional Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. UNITED STATES EPA 6269 ORDER Petitioners' Petition for Clarification is GRANTED. 2007 and reported at 475 F.3d 1096 is hereby amended as follows: 1) On 475 F.3d at 1099. The sentence beginning
	FESTO CORP V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO With him on the brief were Gerald T. Of counsel on the brief were Charles L. Also of counsel on the brief was James B. With him on the brief was Louis T. Of counsel on the brief was Joseph R. Of counsel on the brief were John G. Also of counsel on the brief were Rory J. With him on the brief were Kendrew H. Of counsel on the brief were Perry M. Also on the brief was Mark J. Of counsel on the brief were Frederick T. Also of counsel on the brief was J. Of counsel on the brief was James W. Circuit Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER Inc. were on brief. Were on brief. Because Chevron is still the law of the land. The Act is designed
	OPINION/ORDER Miller is substituted for her predecessor as Regional Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. We are presented with a preexisting SIP containing language that prohibits open burning generally and contains no exception allowing farmers to burn the residue left in their fields after harvesting their crops. EPA's approval is legally unsustainable. So that the amendment only clarified what was already the case. This view of the preexisting SIP is one with which we cannot agree. Open burning of agricultural fields is a common practice in Idaho. Crop residue burning is a prevalent agricultural practice and that there is an environmental benefit to protecting water quality from the growing of certain crops in environmentally SAFE AIR FOR EVERYONE v. The administrative record establishes that such field burning is also a source of particulate matter that contributes to air pollution. (3) that some individuals with such ailments have fled their homes during burning season to avoid the smoke.
	OPINION/ORDER When calculating the
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Nicholas Mesiti and Brett M. Of counsel was William A. On the brief were James M. With him on the brief was S. Of counsel was Goutam Patnaik. Deere alleged that Deere forage harvesters that had been manufactured solely for sale in Europe (the European version forage harvesters) were being imported into the United States. Deere argued that the European version forage harvesters were materially different from the forage harvesters manufactured and authorized for sale in the United States (the North American version forage harvesters). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6). We will not overturn the ITC's factual findings if they are supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusio