Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Did you mean AND AND lichen?

Your query 198 AND 45 AND lochner returned 17 results.

	OPINION/ORDER It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written.
	OPINION/ORDER The face of American poverty is changing dramatically. Minimum wage workers are unable to support their families' basic needs. At A1 (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: When a state is sued for allegedly impairing the contractual obligations of one of its political subdivisions even though it is not a signatory to the contract. The state will not be held liable for violating the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution unless plaintiffs produce evidence that the state's self interest rather than the general welfare of the public motivated the state's conduct. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof because the record of what and why the state has acted is laid out in committee hearings. The record of why the state acted is available. Plaintiffs have not met their burden. Plaintiffs are the Buffalo Teachers Union and a number of other unions in Buffalo. Defendants are the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority (Buffalo Fiscal Authority. The comptroller concluded Buffalo was not in a position to resolve its fiscal woes on its own. The board would have powers and duties similar to those given to boards that already oversaw the budgets of other fiscally troubled municipalities in New York State.
	OPINION/ORDER We hold unanimously that the residency restriction is not unconstitutional on its face. Because the appellees have not established by the
	OPINION/ORDER Which amendment At issue is whether an amendment to a Minnesota The Honorable Richard H. Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. The Association is a nonprofit Minnesota corporation created pursuant to the Minnesota Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association Act (the Act). The Investment Plus Plan of Honeywell the Honeywell plans is First Trust National Association. All insurance companies This Act has been repealed and was replaced in 1993 with Minn. Annuity contracts and elect to do business in Minnesota are required to join and contribute to the Association. Who was a Minnesota resident (as is the current trustee). GICs are unallocated annuity contracts. Or Id. annuity contracts
	OPINION/ORDER At issue is whether an amendment to a Minnesota statute. Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. The Association is a nonprofit Minnesota corporation created pursuant to the Minnesota Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association Act (the Act). The Investment Plus Plan of Honeywell the Honeywell plans is First Trust National Association. App. 1987). business in Minnesota are To provide this protection. Who was a Minnesota resident (as is the current trustee). GICs are unallocated annuity contracts. Or Id. annuity contracts
	OPINION/ORDER Bader were on brief. Pierce Atwood were on brief. The Maine Committee is a nonprofit membership corporation. Among its activities thus funded is the publication of voter guides describing the position of congressional candidates on
	OPINION/ORDER These consolidated interlocutory cross appeals before us pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1993) present an interesting and important question of maritime law: whether state wrongful death and survival statutes are displaced by a federal maritime rule of decision concerning the remedies available for the death of a recreational boater occurring within state territorial waters. [fn1] which are explicitly excluded from the reach of the Death on the High Seas Act. The remedies at issue are loss of society. Was killed in a boating accident in the waters off Puerto Rico. Fashioned a federal common law rule applicable to cases involving the death of a non seaman in territorial waters under which future earnings and punitive damages are not recoverable but damages for loss of society or support are. Each party sought certification to appeal the portion of the court's ruling that was unfavorable. Our analysis of the Supreme Court's maritime wrongful death jurisprudence reveals that there is no federal substantive policy with which state wrongful death or survival statutes conflict here.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We believe that the novel question of state law at issue in this case is one that would be best resolved by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Approximately twenty eight of those were located in South Carolina. INC. 3 Two of Jordan Oil's Hot Spot convenience stores were located in Spartanburg County. Both of these Hot Spot convenience stores were located within five miles of Smile Gas convenience stores operated by Boardman. This cycle of price adjustments continued downward until both parties were selling gas below cost. 000 on the sale of regular gasoline during the period that both parties were selling below cost. The district court concluded that Boardman's conduct was not covered by the UTPA because the UTPA did not apply to independent gasoline retailers and furthermore. Even if Boardman's conduct were covered under the UTPA. Boardman was not in violation because the statute allows a retailer to sell below cost to
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Daniel J. Duff were on the brief for amici curiae John E. Edmonds was on the brief for amici curiae Emil Freireich and Stephen Strum in support of appellants. With him on the brief were Peter D. Turner was on the brief for amici curiae American Society of Clinical Oncology. Schultz was on the brief for amici curiae National Organization for Rare Disorders. Circuit Judge: This case presents the question whether the Constitution provides terminally ill patients a right of access to experimental drugs that have passed limited safety 3 trials but have not been proven safe and effective. The district court held there is no such right. A divided panel of this Court held there is. Because we conclude that there is no fundamental right
	HUDSON V. HALL (10/30/2000, NO. 99-8104) The district court concluding that Officer Hall was entitled to qualified immunity on some. Plaintiff Garrett Hudson (
	OPINION/ORDER Which are fees paid by mortgage lenders to mortgage brokers that are based on the difference between the interest rate at which the broker originates the loan and the par. Are lawful under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). RESPA prohibits the giving or receiving of fees for referral as part of a real estate settlement service but permits fees that are paid for facilities actually furnished or services actually performed in the making of a loan. We do not write on a clean slate in deciding whether the yield spread premium was a referral. Which is charged with enforcing RESPA. It asks whether services were actually performed for the total compensation paid to the mortgage broker. Whether that compensation is reasonably related to the services provided. It then granted summary judgment in favor of Banc One on Scheutz's claim that its payment of the yield spread premium was really for a referral of business by Home Mortgage. That Home Mortgage's total compensation (of which the yield spread premium was a part) was reasonably related to the services provided.
	OPINION/ORDER Summary judgment is proper only when all the evidence presented demonstrates that
	OPINION/ORDER Therefore the Constitution is not violated until the government refuses to compensate the owner. File a suit in state court what is called an
	OPINION/ORDER The district court concluding that Officer Hall was entitled to qualified immunity on some. The district court's grant of summary judgment to the county and the official capacity defendants because some claims remained against Officer Hall individually is not an appealable final judgment. 886 (11th Cir.1984) (concluding that grant of summary judgment for
	OPINION/ORDER Et al. and of the Airports Council International North America and the response thereto have been circulated to the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. It is ORDERED that the petitions be denied. It is apparently the dissent's view that we are authorized to review de novo the DOT's application of the concept of opportunity cost (as if economics were incorporat ed into. We are justified in rejecting the Department's decision as
	HUDSON V. HALL (10/30/2000, NO. 99-8104) The district court concluding that Officer Hall was entitled to qualified immunity on some. Plaintiff Garrett Hudson (