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 .

Your query 342 AND 485 AND Adler returned 13 results.

	OPINION/ORDER Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. Bowman	02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E	08 13 2003


In re: Will C. Cohen	03 13162 / 02 23079 CV KMM	07 08 2004


In re: Will C.
	OPINION/ORDER Jerome Wayne Johnson	03 13595 / 03 00036 CR J 25 TEM	07 12 2004


In re: Will C. Bowman	02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E	08 13 2003


In re: Will C. Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v.
	OPINION/ORDER Kestell was on the briefs. Hamilton were on the briefs. Was on the briefs. Thereafter was unable to perform his prior job as an orderly at Washington Hospital Center (
	OPINION/ORDER Line 25 a comma is inserted after the word
	98-2215 -- CISNEROS V. WILSON -- 09/11/2000 Holding that Plaintiff could not prove: (1) that she was a
	OPINION/ORDER We affirm because plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show harm to competition. That the agreement is part of a monopolization scheme. That the defendants are engaged in unlawful tying of products. We affirm principally because appellants have failed to allege facts that. BACKGROUND Because this is a dismissal under Fed. E&L was the distributor of green hemfir lumber in New York. Those allegations are as 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 distribution arrangement gave rise to the present dispute. Green hem fir lumber is an inexpensive. Durable wood that is
	OPINION/ORDER Was severely damaged when the train carrying the cargo derailed in Texas. The bills of lading were
	OPINION/ORDER Bea) conclude that the case is ripe for adjudication. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case REMANDED with directions to dismiss the action without prejudice. Brought suit in federal district court in diversity against La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme (
	WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (10/12/2000, NO. 99-10798) The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. BACKGROUND
	OPINION/ORDER The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Code § 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp. 1998)).2 A first 2 We adopt the district court's usage of the shorthand term
	OPINION/ORDER The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Id. at 1259 (quoting Ala.Code § 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp.1998)).1 A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $10. We adopt the district court's usage of the shorthand term
	OPINION/ORDER Claiming that they were liable for the health benefits of 11 former miners who retired due to disabilities as well as the health benefits of their dependents. To argue that 26 U.S.C.A. § 9712(d)(4) of the Coal Act was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment as applied to them. Because we conclude that the district court correctly determined that the disabled retirees are eligible beneficiaries under the Coal Act. That the award of attorney's fees was appropriate. There are two groups of Coal Companies involved as defendants. Inc. were signatories to collective bargaining agreements providing health benefits for the retired miners at issue. Panther Branch Coal Company are related to the signatory companies and thus are jointly and severally liable for any amounts required to be paid by the signatory company under the Coal Act. Disputes concerning health care for miners date back to the time early in this century when such care was funded with a prepayment plan through payroll deductions and was supplied by company doctors.
	WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (10/12/2000, NO. 99-10798) The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. BACKGROUND