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 362 AND 440 AND huron returned 12 results.

	OPINION/ORDER Kaplan and The Kaplan/Bond Group were on brief for appellants. Dana & Gould were on brief for appellee. The district court held that the remedies were preempted. Discerning the law in this area is far from easy. We are constrained to reverse in part and to remand for further proceedings. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute. The captain and owner 2 2 were fined a total of $30. 000 of which was to be available to compensate individuals. The claimants in the present appeal are a group of shellfish dealers who allege severe economic losses arising from the two week hiatus in shellfishing activities. Which held that compensation for economic losses standing alone is unavailable in admiralty cases. The dealers assert that their businesses were injured 4 4 when the World Prodigy spill prevented local fishermen from harvesting shellfish in Narragansett Bay and thereby precluded the dealers from purchasing the shellfish and reselling them to restaurants and other buyers. The dealers' maritime law claims are thus purely for economic losses.
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time.
	OPINION/ORDER While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time.
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER Were subject to the class settlement. Appellants have presented this Court with thr ee issues on appeal. While Appellants are subject to the class settlement. Therefore are enjoined from pursuing any claims that fall within that settlement. They are not enjoined from pursuing. Are collectively referr ed to as the
	OPINION/ORDER As the issues raised in this appeal are matters of first impression among the courts of appeals.
	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 Myers argues that Chapter 12B of the San Francisco Administrative Code (Ordinance) is invalid under the dormant Com7479 merce Clause. Myers also asserts that the district court erred when it determined that Myers lacked standing to argue that the Ordinance is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. (ii) a contractor's operations on real property outside of San Francisco owned by the City or which the City has a right to occupy if the contractor's presence at that location is connected to a contract or property contract with the City. [and] (iii) where the work is being performed by a contractor for the City within the United States. If a contractor is found to have breached these nondiscrimination requirements. The City notified Myers that the company was the low bidder on the contract.
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: On page 12. Delete
	OPINION/ORDER Myers argues that Chapter 12B of the San Francisco Administrative Code (Ordinance) is invalid under the dormant Com7479 merce Clause. Myers also asserts that the district court erred when it determined that Myers lacked standing to argue that the Ordinance is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. (ii) a contractor's operations on real property outside of San Francisco owned by the City or which the City has a right to occupy if the contractor's presence at that location is connected to a contract or property contract with the City. [and] (iii) where the work is being performed by a contractor for the City within the United States. If a contractor is found to have breached these nondiscrimination requirements. The City notified Myers that the company was the low bidder on the contract.
	OPINION/ORDER Iowa law further requires all cities and counties of the state of Iowa to file a comprehensive plan with the IDNR detailing how they will comply with section 455B.302. Any part of which is included in another comprehensive plan.