Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
00-3056 -- U.S. V. MCELHINEY -- 12/26/2001
McElhiney was indicted by a federal grand jury of conspiracy to distribute and possess heroin with the intent to distribute it. The conspiracy charge was based on Mr. A jury trial was held. The result of the trial was a hung jury: ten to two in favor of conviction. McElhiney was allegedly involved first came to light while the government was investigating the murder of a prisoner. The murder was ordered by the leadership of the Aryan Brotherhood. McElhiney was a ranking member. Was charged with the murder. Was a hung jury. The jury informed the district court that it was unable to reach a verdict. (3) the district court's Allen charge was impermissibly coercive. (4) his conviction and sentence were improper in light of Apprendi v. (6) he was denied an impartial jury.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
FL AUDBN SCTY V. BENTSEN L.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and Friends of the Earth (FOE) have sued Magnesium Elektron. We will reverse the district court and vacate its permanent injunction and judgment against MEI. Because no new permit was issued. The terms of the 1984 permit remained in effect. (1) against any person . . . who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent standard or limitation under this chapter or (B) an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation . . . . 33 U.S.C. § 1365 (1986). 4 Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey and Friends of the Earth are non profit environmental organizations.2 Pursuant to the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act. The affiants' enjoyment of these activities is lessened to the extent that they
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
National Voting Rights Institute were on brief. Were on brief. Suit was brought in anticipation of the debates to be staged by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) before the November 2000 Presidential Election. That we have Article III jurisdiction and. Concluding that Nader and the Green Party had standing to challenge the FEC's debate regulations
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The plaintiffs are a collection of associations and individuals led by the American Civil Liberties Union. Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims. Of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has
|
|
CLAJON PRODUCTION CORP. V. PETERA
This case is a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action challenging several Wyoming hunting regulations as violative of the federal and state constitutional rights of a number of Wyoming ranchers (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
WOODEN V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. SYS. OF GEORGIA (4/19/2001, NO. 00-14322)
|
|
WOODEN V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. SYS. OF GEORGIA (4/19/2001, NO. 00-14322)
|
 |
02-3329 -- TANDY V. CITY OF WICHITA -- 08/25/2004
Almost all of the Appellants were testing Wichita Transit's compliance with the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA and did not reside in the Wichita area. Appellants alleged that Wichita Transit's fixed route bus system was intentionally inaccessible to and unusable by people with disabilities.
|
|
WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)
The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
All the Judges on this panel are sitting by designation: Paul R. Because nothing in the complaint indicates that these rules have somehow caused an injury personal to Schmier. The current version of this Rule will expire by its own force on December 31. The version of the Rule that it temporarily replaced (and that will presumably go into effect once or if the current Rule expires) similarly states that neither parties nor courts in the Ninth Circuit may rely on unpublished orders or opinions as precedent.
|
|
WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)
The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.
|
|
WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)
The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.
|
|
WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)
The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Have standing to sue. The focus of federal efforts to abate water pollution was measurement of the quality of receiving waters. The use of water quality standards as a control mechanism was found to be
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is race based. 528 U.S. 495. Violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it restricts benefits to only those classified as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were James F. With him on the brief were Patricia Mack Bryan. It alleges that the challenged Senate rules have slowed the confirmation process and thus the filling of judicial vacancies. We will focus on it. The court concluded that Judicial Watch's interest in speed of litigation either was not protected by the provisions that Judicial Watch cited (namely. Or at any rate was not protected by those provisions in such a way that the delays Judicial Watch claimed amounted to invasion of any
|
|
ANIMAL LEG DEF FUND V. GLICKMAN DANIEL
United States Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the briefs. Harris Weinstein argued the cause for appellant National Association for Biomedical Research. Javitt were on the briefs. Katherine A. Stanley was on the briefs. Andrew L. Frey was on the briefs for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Leslie G. Hedg peth were on the briefs for amicus curiae The Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research. The regulated parties are not obligated to make them available to members of the public. See id. The individual plaintiffs. Jurnove's affidavit is an uncontested statement of the injuries that he has suffered to his aesthetic interest in observing animals living under humane conditions. See Ani mal Legal Defense Fund. 49 (D.D.C. 1996) (granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on all legal claims except one that plaintiffs have not appealed.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Suzanne Hassell Milton were on brief for appellees. *Of the District of Massachusetts. We are constrained to dismiss this case without reaching the sensitive constitutional issue at the heart of the litigation. The Union represents individuals who presently are postal service employees. Some of those employees underwent drug testing before they were hired. The Union seeks a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional. The Union thus pursues remedies that will benefit only would be Union members.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appeals the district court's dismissal of his § 1983 civil rights action challenging the refusal of certain Michigan Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves from cases in which he is involved. Andin turnseveral of the justices have made public remarks regarding Fieger.
|
|
97-4015 -- STATE OF UTAH V. BABBITT -- 03/03/1998
Summary of Utah Wilderness Debate A brief review of the history of the wilderness debate in Utah is necessary to put the facts of this case into context. These public lands comprise approximately one fifth of the nation's land and are primarily located in eleven western states and Alaska. See id. FLPMA
|
|
WILSON V. GLENWOOD INTERMOUNTAIN PROPS., INC.
We conclude they do not have standing. All of the defendant landlords have been certified by BYU to provide BYU off campus housing to unmarried BYU students. (2) to segregate students from non students by buildings or wings of buildings if they are certified to rent to both students and non students. (3) to rent only to unmarried male or unmarried female students or to separate unmarried male students from unmarried female students by buildings or wings of buildings if the landlords are certified to rent to both male and female BYU students. Apartments in those buildings and wings are rented only to students. An unmarried man under 25 years old who was not a BYU student. Was denied apartments in off campus BYU approved student housing that was reserved for women. An unmarried woman under 25 years old who was not a BYU student. Was denied apartments in off campus BYU approved student housing that was reserved for men. They were not otherwise qualified for apartments reserved for students. The court also ruled that in any case defendants' practices were permitted under Title IX.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
United States Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the briefs. Javitt were on the briefs. Stanley was on the briefs. Frey was on the briefs for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Hedg peth were on the briefs for amicus curiae The Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research. The regulated parties are not obligated to make them available to members of the public. Jurnove's affidavit is an uncontested statement of the injuries that he has suffered to his aesthetic interest in observing animals living under humane conditions. 49 (D.D.C. 1996) (granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on all legal claims except one that plaintiffs have not appealed. [he is] very familiar with the needs of and proper treatment of wildlife.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Honig were on brief. Were on brief. Gottfried was on brief. Appended to the petition to deny were declarations by one former part time employee. By two other former employees and two unsuccessful job applicants who claimed to have been subjected to discriminatory treatment.1 In the petition. The University responded that it did not believe disclosure of Sullivan's complaint was required because her discrimination suit resulted in a verdict in the University's favor. In May 1997 the FCC sent the University a letter asking the University to explain why it had failed to disclose the Sullivan Also appended was the declaration of Sullivan's
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The question presented by this appeal is whether a taxpayer can ever have standing under Article III of the Constitution to litigate an alleged violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause unless Congress has earmarked money for the program or activity that is challenged. Would have been correct in his thinking under an earlier view of Article III's limitation of the federal judicial power to deciding
|
 |
UNITED STATES V. BRAZEL
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> These appeals are from the convictions of seven individuals charged with drug trafficking offenses following a jury trial that took place in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Marlon McNealy were allegedly all associated with an organization led by Ronald Mathis (a/k/a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan97/93-2951.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. BRAZEL<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> These appeals are from the convictions of seven individuals charged with drug trafficking offenses following a jury trial that took place in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Marlon McNealy were allegedly all associated with an organization led by Ronald Mathis (a/k/a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/98-9347.man.html">GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES V. COX (8/11/1999, NO. 98-9347)<BR></A><BR>
Organizations whose members are citizens eligible to vote in Georgia elections. Contending the system by which state elections are financed in Georgia violates their rights to equal protection. The district court concluded Appellants did not have standing and dismissed their complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Appellants contend the laws that ensure the success of wealthy candidates are: (1) Ga.Code Ann. § 21 5 41(c). Helps to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></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-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/98-9347.man.html">GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES V. COX (8/11/1999, NO. 98-9347)<BR></A><BR>
Organizations whose members are citizens eligible to vote in Georgia elections. Contending the system by which state elections are financed in Georgia violates their rights to equal protection. The district court concluded Appellants did not have standing and dismissed their complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Appellants contend the laws that ensure the success of wealthy candidates are: (1) Ga.Code Ann. § 21 5 41(c). Helps to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011899.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because none of the plaintiffs have constitutional standing to bring this suit against FWS. Stasko is Refuge Manager of the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Leger is Refuge Chief of the National Wildlife System. The first was a right of way owned by the City known as Ferrell VII. STASKO 3 The right of way was previously designated for construction of Ferrell Parkway. The second was a piece of property owned by Lotus known as Phases II and III of Lotus Creek. The City Council concluded that the protection of both parcels in a natural state was necessary to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0447p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Soccer City is a for profit corporation engaged in the The Honorable William H. While we find that Plaintiff did in fact have standing. Factual History The facts in this case are largely undisputed. The first site Soccer City tested was found to be unsuitable for construction. So a second site was tested. After determining that the second site was suitable. The Board required any interested parties to submit their bids within the following three weeks in order to have them considered. The Board further required a guarantee from any new bidders that whomever was awarded the contract would reimburse Soccer City for the environmental testing it had conducted. Plaintiff was unable. The day the bids were due. Which was the one from Soccer City. Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine No. 05 2360 Club Italia Soccer v. Page 3 issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The basis for constitutional standing is derived from Article III's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMwMDAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3000-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concerns the proper course for a district court when confronted with a motion to dismiss both on the merits and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in circumstances where subject matter jurisdiction is adequately pleaded but the underlying jurisdictional facts are in question. A ruling premised on the Court's view that salt is not a pollutant under the CWA. We hold that the District Court must first resolve the subject matter jurisdictional issue on which the Plaintiffs' Article III standing depends before awarding either side a judgment that is. Because the Article III jurisdictional facts have not yet been determined. Background The Plaintiffs Appellants are non profit organizations dedicated to preserving the environment. Crossgates contended that the Plaintiffs' injury from the pollutants was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0075p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is one of Perry's victims. Ordered Perry to make all payments to the clerk's office so that the clerk could
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C0D7650F8637C4878825706E004FBD4A/$file/0415306.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: In this case we are called on. Plaintiffs in this case are citizens of the State of Hawaii who allege that various state programs preferentially treat persons of Hawaiian ancestry. Which this opinion will address. We hold that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue the federal government and that the district court therefore correctly dismissed all claims to which the United States is a named party or an indispensable party. We affirm the district court in finding that Plaintiffs have demonstrated standing as state taxpayers to challenge those state programs that are funded by state tax revenue and for ARAKAKI v. LINGLE 11861 which the United States is not an indispensable party. Plaintiffs therefore have standing to bring a suit claiming that the OHA programs that are funded by state tax revenue violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Provided that the Republic of Hawaii ceded all public lands to the United States and that revenues from the lands were to be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E1DDB3F053DD0C92882570F2007BBBF6/$file/0356855.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue before us is whether a plaintiff bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 can assign her right to seek attorney's fees to her attorney. The complaint alleged that Pony was a victim of various traditional torts and constitutional violations arising out of medical procedures she was subjected to by JAWS employees on April 24. Because Client will not possess the powers or rights to waive
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-1385a.htm">99-1385A -- SCHAFFER V. CLINTON -- 02/13/2001<BR></A><BR>
Appellant Schaffer's last name was misspelled as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-1385.htm">99-1385 -- SCHAEFFER V. CLINTON -- 02/13/2001<BR></A><BR>
Because we determine that appellant does not have standing to sue. Whether the district court erred in holding that the COLA provision of the Ethics Reform Act does not violate the Twenty Seventh Amendment to the Constitution and that the COLA provision is not an unconstitutional delegation of Congress's legislative authority. Until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/95-3251.wpd.html">PHELPS V. HAMILTON<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This is one of a series of cases initiated by the plaintiffs appellants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 from eleven state criminal prosecutions arising from their anti homosexual picketing and from state statutes which allegedly threaten their picketing activities. The district court held that: (1) a state court determination that the criminal prosecutions were not brought in bad faith violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights was entitled to full faith and credit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1738. (2) the Kansas Funeral Picketing Act was unconstitutionally vague. (3) the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the Kansas anti stalking law and Kansas telephone and fax harassment law. Phelps are members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka. Who are involved in anti homosexual protests and picketing in Shawnee County. The plaintiffs and other members of the Westboro Baptist Church have engaged in a campaign against homosexuality through demonstrating.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C9D33A3EF8BC665C88256D95005BFD72/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
STEWART 12713 I It is the raw material from which legal fiction is forged: A vicious murder.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1765.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214423.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant Alabama Tombigbee Rivers Coalition is an Alabama non profit corporation consisting of sixteen industries. Appellant Parker Towing Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-1182a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Michael Chertoff. This responsibility is assigned to the Attorney General in consulta tion with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1688p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Inc. is a fast food service company that sells pizza through a national network of over 4200 stores. Inc. is the second largest pizza company in the United States. The essence of a successful nationwide fast food chain is product uniformity and consistency. Uniformity benefits franchisees because customers can purchase pizza from 3 any Domino's store and be certain the pizza will taste exactly like the Domino's pizza with which they are familiar. This means that individual franchisees need not build up their own good will. It ensures the brand name will continue to attract and hold customers. Section 12.2 is subject to a reasonableness clause providing that Domino's Pizza. When Do Franchisors Have Market Power? DPDD was formerly a subsidiary of Domino's Pizza. The plaintiffs in this case are eleven Domino's franchisees and the International Franchise Advisory Council. Even though the dough producing stores were willing to sell dough at a price 25% to 40% below Domino's Pizza. FPC was appointed the purchasing agent for IFAC member Domino's franchisees.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/871BAC121EA04C0388256CD8005C3CAD/$file/0117065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Negative political advertising is nothing new. Where's my pa?
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1895.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gallagher & Spielberg were on brief. Were on brief. Jr. and Ropes & Gray were on brief. There is. BACKGROUND The litigation that undergirds this appeal is nearly a decade old. NWF argued that 2The statute provides that the federal government may grant covenants not to sue to CERCLA defendants . . . if each of the following conditions is met: (A) The covenant not to sue is in the public interest. (C) The [covenantee] is in full compliance with a consent decree under [CERCLA] section 9606 . . . (including a consent decree entered into in accordance with this section) for response to the release or threatened release concerned. Is the lone appellant. THE NECESSITY FOR STANDING Our odyssey through the often Byzantine world of standing is greatly assisted in this instance by the Supreme Court's opinion in Diamond v. Since the intervenor was the sole appellant. Justice Blackmun wrote that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-8071.htm">01-8071 -- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SWEETWATER COUNTY V. GERINGER -- 07/31/2002<BR></A><BR>
Which is charged with overseeing health services for miners in the state. The hospital was then renamed Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County. Sweetwater County lacks standing to bring the present suit because it is neither a trustee nor a beneficiary of the alleged trust. Standing is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1317.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for intervenor. Were on brief for plaintiff. Were on brief for plaintiff. There is a threshold question whether the MWMBI has independent standing to maintain this appeal. Are a per se violation of the Sherman Act and are not shielded from invalidation by the state action doctrine. Massachusetts wholesalers must post all prices that they will charge for the following month. Wholesalers are permitted to amend the price on a specific brand product to meet. The district court concluded that the Price Posting Laws are a state hybrid restraint constituting a per se violation of the Sherman Act. That these laws are not saved by the state action defense. We have no jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case. 476 U.S. at 68 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1171.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1993 is corrected as follows: On page 24. Medeiros was on brief. Sachse & Endreson was on brief for Common Cause and Common Cause of R.I. With whom Licht & Semonoff was on brief. Cutler & Pickering were on brief. The entity charged with primary responsibility for implementing these laws is the Rhode Island Board of Elections. The reports are to include the name. The 4 Board of Elections is empowered to halt PACs from using names which are misleading or which do not accurately identify a committee's membership and contributor base. Does not apply in the same way to PACs sponsored by labor unions or those which are funded through payroll checkoff plans. 3 the state will match money raised from private 2From and after January 1. Candidates for certain other statewide offices are also eligible to receive public funding. We limit our discussion to gubernatorial candidates. 3The eligibility criteria are set forth in R.I. The election and pledge are irrevocable. Persons seeking state elective office must file formal declarations of candidacy in June of the year in which the election is to be held.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071289p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A declaration from the District Court that the justices' commissions were void because the Governor failed to comply with the statutory deadline for submitting his nominations to the Legislature and because the Governor exceeded his statutory authority under Section 7(a) of the Organic Act. By calling the special session at which the nominees were confirmed. Governor Turnbull was the original defendant in this action. DeJongh was sworn in as Governor of the Virgin Islands. He was thereafter substituted for Governor Turnbull. Croix.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5088a.html">AKINS JAMES V. FEC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1FDEAE5749ED685B88256C1000653074/$file/9971536.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: The Slip Opinion at page 9685. Standing: REMOVE THE BEGINNING PORTION OF THE FIRST SENTENCE Despite the Aluminum Companies' half hearted attention to whether they have standing to bring their petitions. BONNEVILLE POWER ADMIN. 11579
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0377p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Permit holders are generally required both to monitor their effluent discharges and to report these results. If monitoring and reporting requirements are imposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1098a.html">LA ENGY & POWER AUTH V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413210op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tanner applied for and was denied a sign permit because Tanner sought to construct signs that did not comply with section 1 43 of the Sign Ordinance. The district court denied injunctive relief on the ground that section 1 43 was constitutional and Tanner lacked standing to challenge the other provisions of the 1998 Sign Ordinance. Because all but one of the challenges by Tanner were rendered moot by the 2005 Sign Ordinance and Tanner lacks standing to challenge the remaining provision. Business or solicitation which is not carried out on the premises upon which the sign is located.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A8896E583616EC4688256E82007E9EE7/$file/0356028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rancho is a county hospital dedicated primarily to providing inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative care. Is an acute care facility that provides a full range of hospital services. Challenging the district court's decision that plaintiffs have standing to sue and the court's issuance of an injunction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). County emergency rooms are overwhelmed. Creating what witnesses in this case have called an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2673.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Weizenbaum Ltd.</SPAN> were on brief. Some of which (such as a nativity scene) were overtly religious. We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3956_038.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both sides moved for summary judgment. 2 No. 03 3956 The district court ruled that (1) the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief is moot. (3) questions of fact remained for trial as to whether plaintiffs had suffered retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights and (4) the Inspector General is not entitled to qualified immunity as to either claim. Claiming that he is entitled to qualified immunity. The underlying facts are not disputed.1 The plaintiffs served as Internal Security Investigators II (ISI 2s) in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in the Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS) at all times relevant to this suit.2 The OIG is responsible for investigating reports of abuse and neglect of the mentally ill and developmentally disabled persons who receive DHS services. Completes investigations by preparing 1 The facts in ths section are taken primarily from the district court's opinion below. Jenny Wernsing was hired as an ISI II in 1998. Charles Bingaman was hired in 1997.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1275.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Straub and Straub & Meyers were on joint brief for appellees Chelmsford School Committee. Susan Wunsch and Massachusetts Civil Liberties Union Foundation were on brief for appellees Michael Gilchrist and Judith Hass. The plaintiffs are two minors TORRUELLA. The minors allege that they were compelled to attend an indecent AIDS and sex education program conducted at their public high school by defendant Hot. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The plaintiffs are Chelmsford High School students Jason P. Both students were fifteen years old at the time. The Program was staged by defendant Suzi Landolphi (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1236.html">INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT V. TCI CABLEVISION OF CA<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/98-9085.man.html">HIGH V. HEAD (4/19/2000, NO. 98-9085)<BR></A><BR>
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case were briefly summarized in a previous opinion of this Court as follows:</P> <P> Jose High and his accomplices. Phillips was placed in the trunk of the car and Bullock in the back seat. High and his accomplices drove their captives to a remote site where they were to be eliminated. The 11 year old boy was taunted with threats of death as they rode in the back seat of the car. The victims were forced to lie face down in front of the car and were then shot. 1508 (11th Cir.1990) (footnote omitted).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-7103.htm">01-7103 -- ABDULHASEEB V. SAFFLE -- 03/27/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/98-9085.man.html">HIGH V. HEAD (4/19/2000, NO. 98-9085)<BR></A><BR>
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case were briefly summarized in a previous opinion of this Court as follows:</P> <P> Jose High and his accomplices. Phillips was placed in the trunk of the car and Bullock in the back seat. High and his accomplices drove their captives to a remote site where they were to be eliminated. The 11 year old boy was taunted with threats of death as they rode in the back seat of the car. The victims were forced to lie face down in front of the car and were then shot. 1508 (11th Cir.1990) (footnote omitted).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></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-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5317a.html">UNIV MED CTR SO NV V. SHALALA DONNA E.<BR></A><BR>
With him on <p> the brief were <i>Frank W. Anderson</i> was on the brief for <i>amicus curiae</i> <p> National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems.<p> <p> Before: Silberman. Concerned that many federally funded hospital <p> facilities serving low income patients were incurring high <p> prices for drugs. Section 340B <p> requires a manufacturer of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5095a.html">CHENOWETH HELEN V. CLINTON, WILLIAM J.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief <p> were <i>Lois J. All of <p> whom are Members of the United States House of Represen <p> tatives. The Representatives sought a declaration that the <p> issuance of the AHRI was unlawful and an injunction against <p> its implementation.<p> <p> The district court granted the President's motion to dis <p> miss. Concluding that the injury the Representatives claim to <p> have suffered the deprivation of their right as Members of <p> the Congress to vote on (or. Against) the <p> AHRI is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F03FDDB4DDB4E6138825727A00839A9B/$file/0610273.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McDermott Will & Emery LLP. ORDER The Court rules on the pending petitions for rehearing and Liquidators' request to be heard as follows: (1) The United States' request to amend the opinion is granted in part and denied in part. Is hereby amended as follows: At slip opinion 18666. Delete:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ECF932AC9FA86A2E8825727D000220DB/$file/0415306.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: In this case we are called on. Plaintiffs in this case are citizens of the State of Hawaii who allege that various state programs preferentially treat persons of Hawaiian ancestry. Which this opinion will address. We are issuing a complete opinion in support of our judgment following remand from the Supreme Court. We hold that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue the federal government and that the district court therefore correctly dismissed all claims to which the United States is a named party or an indispensable party. We reverse the district court's finding that Plaintiffs have demonstrated standing as state taxpayers to challenge those programs that are funded by state tax revenue and for which the United States is not an indispensable party. Lack standing to bring a suit claiming that the OHA programs that are funded by state tax revenue violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although it is not clear that any Plaintiffs have standing in any other capacity to challenge the OHA programs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/44B25B72D699FFA28825722C007C5C24/$file/0610273.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Whether Liquidators have standing to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court before the district court concludes ancillary proceedings. We further conclude that the controversy is not yet ripe for judicial review. 3394. [1] Property of a person convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1956 is presumed subject to forfeiture if the United States establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the defendant acquired the property during the period he violated 18 U.S.C. § 1956 or within a reasonable time thereafter. Upon a finding that the property involved is subject to forfeiture. 607 (1989) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36D3991E0771F37D88256CE1005F60E7/$file/0235530.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is charged with evaluating and treating mentally incapacitated defendants. OSH argues that it is the county jails' responsibility to maintain and treat incapacitated defendants until OSH has an open bed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A mentally incapacitated criminal defendant who was detained in a county jail while awaiting transfer to OSH. Plaintiff Oregon Advocacy Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/951201P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Held that the Government's explanation for the restrictions was inadequate under the Endangered Species Act. That the question of intervention Jeffrey is not moot. Voyageurs National Park is a watery maze of over 30 lakes and 900 islands along the border between northern Minnesota and Canada. from Montreal deep into northwestern Canada.1 Kabetogama Peninsula (about one half the The Park's name pays tribute to the fur traders and explorers who travelled by canoe The Park's four largest land area) and are lakes Rainy. Most of the Park is Voyageurs is renowned for its fishing and boating. Who have. Park.2 Some background information will make this case easier to understand. Allowing snowmobiling on practically all the Park's lake surfaces and also on certain is the latest in a series of disputes over the use and management of the 1 In 1971. Were illegal.4 year. The National Park Service proposed a wilderness plan which would have significantly reduced overland snowmobiling. Snowmobiling could have on grey wolves.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/992986P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case was brought by forty seven individuals seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the State of Minnesota. State funds have been used for these abortions since the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned a state statutory scheme which authorized state spending on medical services related to childbirth but prohibited it for therapeutic abortions. Several amicus briefs have been submitted in support.2 Because the appellants have not established standing. The federal court is without jurisdiction to reach the merits of the issues raised in their complaint. I. Many issues relating to the provision of abortion services have been legislated and litigated since the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. A number have related to the use of public funds for abortions. This federal policy is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment after its original sponsor. It is effected by means of an amendment to the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services or by a joint resolution.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3451_054.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal presents another variation on the question whether taxpayers have standing to challenge a governmental action that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause an issue that arises with some regularity. Each of these cases addresses challenging issues in an area of law in which the law is by no means clear. The taxpayers' target is a federal statute. Plaintiff Eugene Winkler and others (to whom we refer collectively as Winkler) sued the Secretary of Defense claiming that the Jamboree statute violates the Establishment Clause because it requires the government to support an organization BSA that conditions membership upon a belief in God and thus that excludes believers in religions that are not based on one or more Deities. The district court ruled that standing was proper. It then found that BSA is a religious organization and that the direct public subsidy of the Jamborees violated the Establishment Clause. We conclude that Winkler does not have standing to challenge the Jamboree statute. There are three elements of Article III standing: injury in fact.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1015.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Replace case number
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1775.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 4. Jr. were on brief. Goodwin Procter & Hoar were on brief. Clients' funds which lawyers held for a short term or in nominal amounts were deposited into non interest bearing pooled trust accounts. Banking laws and the ethical obligation of lawyers to maintain clients' funds so that they were immediately available for reimbursement prevented such pooled trust accounts from accruing interest. The Massachusetts IOLTA program was established by amendment to Canon 9. The deposits were nominal in amount or to be held for only a short period of time. The designated charities were Massachusetts Legal Assistance. The parties have not briefed or argued any issues in the context of the 1993 amendment to the IOLTA Rule.3 Although the amendment of the IOLTA Rule affects the process of funds disbursement. The changes are not material to this decision. Was significant. The funds are still disbursed primarily to Massachusetts Legal Assistance with the remainder to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2086.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom was <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1404.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1027.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hoch</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. The program is the product of a consent decree entered in 1973. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/002502.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. NPI is participating in the creation of a national wireless network to provide
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/05-1225a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Richard S. With her on the brief were Peter D. The guidance is TSA's latest attempt to define the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-5395a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Alyza D. Steven Lieberman was on the brief for amici curiae American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. Paul Kujawsky was on the brief for amici curiae Congressmembers Henry A. With him on the brief were Peter D. Circuit Judge: Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem on October 17. As a child of U.S. citizens who have resided in the United States. He also is a U.S. citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c). The ultimate issue in this appeal is whether § 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. Entitles Menachem to have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></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-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/98-5463a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Judy Rabinovitz. Perkins was on the brief for amicus curiae The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. Beasley was on the brief for amicus curiae Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children. With her on the briefs were David W. Established a system for expediting the removal of aliens who arrive at the border but are not eligible for admission. Or procedure ... is first implemented.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/98-5095a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Lois J. All of whom are Members of the United States House of Represen tatives. The Representatives sought a declaration that the issuance of the AHRI was unlawful and an injunction against its implementation. Concluding that the injury the Representatives claim to have suffered the deprivation of their right as Members of the Congress to vote on (or. Against) the AHRI is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/98-5317a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Frank W. Anderson was on the brief for amicus curiae National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems. Concerned that many federally funded hospital facilities serving low income patients were incurring high prices for drugs. Section 340B requires a manufacturer of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199803/96-5259a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Attor ney at the time the brief was filed. Was on the brief. The wrong claim was brought by the wrong party in the wrong jurisdiction. It is well settled that a parole decision can be challenged only by the individual denied parole through a habeas action brought in the jurisdiction in which he is incarcerated. I. Background Tony Alamo is founder and pastor of the Christian Church of Alamo (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/026827.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A detainee at the Norfolk Naval Station Brig who was captured as an alleged enemy combatant during ongoing military operations in Afghanistan. Was ready. As is now painfully familiar. The President responded by ordering United States armed forces to Afghanistan to subdue al Qaida and the governing Taliban regime that was supporting it. Thousands of alleged enemy combatants have been captured by American and allied forces including. Hamdi was initially transferred to Camp X Ray at the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay. After it came to light that he was born in Louisiana and may not have renounced his American citizenship. Hamdi was brought to the Norfolk Naval Station Brig. While this litigation is pending. There was someone with a close preexisting relationship with Hamdi who was. Peregrim responded that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610705.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * At issue today is whether the district court erred in dismissing a First Amendment claim for declaratory and injunctive relief on standing and ripeness grounds. The nature of the protest activity are utterly lacking. This case is not justiciable. I. The basic facts and procedural history are straightforward. Joe Redner allege that their First Amendment rights were violated on November 2.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971853A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which requires that a minor who decides to have an abortion inform one of her parents twenty four 2 hours prior to performance of the procedure. Only hours before this law was to become effective. Is facially constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. A contrary holding that the People of Virginia are forbidden by the Constitution of the United States from requiring that the responsible mother and father of a pregnant teenage daughter even be told of the life defining decision their own daughter confronts we are convinced. Of will. The Act was to become effective at 12:01 Tuesday morning. The Act is a parental notice statute. Notice of the anticipated abortion is provided to one of the minor's parents. In circumstances in which either an abortion is immediately necessary to prevent the 3 mother's death or there is insufficient time to permit notification without exposing the minor to serious health risk. Authorization of an abortion without parental notification for a minor who shows that she is mature and capable of giving informed consent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-12251.man.html">DILLARD V. BALDWIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (9/8/2000, NO. 99-12251)<BR></A><BR>
The Baldwin County Commission was composed of four persons elected at large. The case was one among many Dillard suits in the district courts which challenged the at large election systems used by dozens of cities. The court noted that only 15.34% of the County's population was black and the number was expected to decrease after the 1990 census. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-12251.man.html">DILLARD V. BALDWIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (9/8/2000, NO. 99-12251)<BR></A><BR>
The Baldwin County Commission was composed of four persons elected at large. The case was one among many Dillard suits in the district courts which challenged the at large election systems used by dozens of cities. The court noted that only 15.34% of the County's population was black and the number was expected to decrease after the 1990 census. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/022366P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was added to the South Dakota Constitution as the result of a 1998 referendum. I. Amendment E was codified as four sections of Article XVII of the South Dakota Constitution. Five of which are relevant to the issues raised on appeal. 6 The first of these relevant exemptions is for a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312111.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants are registered voters o f Dou gherty C ounty. Against appellees alleging that the current voting districts are malapportioned. Finding that appellants lacked standing to pursue a case un der §1983 and § 1973 against appellees because they were not do miciled in the underrepresented voting districts. 2 and thus were not harmed. Alleging that the district court (1) erred in both law and fact in holding they lacked standing because they were over re presente d and (2 ) abused its discretio n in denying app ellants' mo tion to consolidate their case with Knigh ton v. Dismissal for lack of standing is also reviewed de novo. We review the district court's ruling on wheth er conso lidation is a pprop riate und er an abu se of disc retion stan dard. The Committee was evenly divided with three white members and three African American members. The Committee was reconvened to consider appellant Wright's plans in conju nction w ith the plan previou sly selected . It is un disputed that as a res ult on this inaction by the Georgia state legislature the districts were unchanged.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-0001c.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is hereby<p> <p> <b>ORDERED</b> that the application be dismissed for the rea <p> sons set forth in the accompanying opinion.<p> <b><u> Per Curiam</u></b><p> <p> For the Court:<p> <p> Mark J. <i><p> Senior Circuit Judges</i>.<p> <p> <b>ON APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE <p> AND WRIT OF PROHIBITION</b><p> <p> Opinion of the Special Court filed <i>Per Curiam</i>. <p> <p> <i>Per Curiam</i>: Landmark Legal Foundation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2242_027.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an Illinois corporation that trades in mutual funds and makes money by taking advantage of short term price/value discrepancies that occur when the current value of a fund's portfolio securities has changed and that change is not yet reflected in the fund's share price. That is. DH2 is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214434.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As an ind ividual and in h is capacity a s Mayo r of the city . After several permit applications to construct billboards in the City were d enied unde r Article 3. After unconstitutional provisions of Division 18 were severed from the remainder of the ordinance. The remaining provisions were constitutional. I. BACKGROUND1 Granite State is a Georgia corporation in the business of buying or leasing land upon which to construct signs and billboards to be used for both commercial and non commercial purposes. Gra nite State receives its profits from the sale of billboard permits it obtains from various 1 The facts in this case that we relate are undisputed. cities and municipalities. Some of which have been obtained through litigation similar to th e case bef ore us. Clearwater is a political subdivision of the state of Florida and describes itself as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec97/99-2354.opn.html">CHERYL BISCHOFF, VICKY STITES V. OSCEOLA COUNTY (8/14/2000, NO. 99-2354)<BR></A><BR>
May dismiss a complaint determining that the Plaintiffs lack standing simply by making a credibility determination based on the contents of squarely conflicting affidavits <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></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-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/012277P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The City of Ferguson is a charter city located in St. Electioneering or contributing money or other things of value for any person who is a candidate for mayor or council. Was void for vagueness and enjoined future enforcement of that provision. This issue is not before us. All other prohibitions contained in the challenged provision were held to be constitutional as applied to the plaintiff Lloyd Thompson. The Court also determined that Alma Mendez Thompson lacked standing to challenge the provision because she was not an employee of the City. The pendent state claim was dismissed by the District Court.1 II.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/98-5405a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Robin W. With her on the brief were Lois J. Erwin was on the brief for amici curiae Dale Bondurant. Featherly was on the brief for amici curiae Mary Bishop. Circuit Judge: The Alaska Legislative Council is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/96-5267b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Joanne Royce. With her on the brief was Mary Lou Leary. Circuit Judge: Three former employees of the Resolution Trust Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/84933D9DD4C7A62288256BCC006A7D35/$file/0036096.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Twenty five percent of all moneys received from national forests within their borders to be spent as the state legislature prescribes for the benefit of public schools and public roads of counties in which a national forest is situated. 16 U.S.C. § 500. The district court held that neither the parents nor school districts have standing. School districts are a political subdivision of the state. Have standing is a closer question. We conclude that they have sufficiently shown injury in fact. That their ability to redress concerns about their children's education through the requested relief is problematic because the connection between § 500 and the quality of education delivered by any particular district is attenuated. Section 500 provides that federal forest funds are to be paid to the state. I Stephen and Marile Kunkel have four children who attend public school in the Okanogan School District.1 The district is in a county that has forest land which belongs to the federal government. National forest property is not taxable by the county.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/94-0001c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is hereby ORDERED that the application be dismissed for the rea sons set forth in the accompanying opinion. Per Curiam: Landmark Legal Foundation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/203903E224439F7A88256FB6005E3901/$file/0317068.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Allows the state to confine particularly dangerous individuals who have been convicted of multiple sexual offenses. If either party so requests) must determine that he is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/94-0001b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Per curiam: Landmark Legal Foundation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1374a.html">OMNIPOINT CORP V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042904p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. We will Harrison Aire. Is an FAA licensed pilot and aircraft mechanic. Which it contends is a result of Raven/Aerostar's monopolization of the relevant balloon fabric aftermarket. Raven Industries is a diversified manufacturing company based in Sioux Falls. Hot air balloons are regulated from cradle to grave by the Federal Aviation Administration. Balloon manufacturers are required to provide their customers with a balloon maintenance manual. The manual is in two parts. All replacement parts must be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3655.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is the second time we have been asked to consider an effort to block the promulgation and implementation of new rules designed to bring the Illinois system of special education teacher certification into compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). That decree was designed to bring the Illinois system of special education teacher certification into compliance with various requirements of the IDEA. I Under the ISBE rules that were in effect before this litigation. Special education teachers were trained and certified in eight disability categories: learning disabilities. The district court found that because teachers were trained and certified to teach by category of disability. They were unable to service disabled children in integrated settings. The ISBE was to have the primary responsibility of developing special education teacher certification rules. Remained subject to the court's jurisdiction to ensure that the plan eventually adopted was consistent with the permanent injunction the court had already entered against the ISBE forbidding further violations of the IDEA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/99-2354.opn.html">CHERYL BISCHOFF, VICKY STITES V. OSCEOLA COUNTY (8/14/2000, NO. 99-2354)<BR></A><BR>
May dismiss a complaint determining that the Plaintiffs lack standing simply by making a credibility determination based on the contents of squarely conflicting affidavits <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-4149.htm">02-4149 -- SKULL VALLEY BAND OF GOSHUTE INDIANS V. NIELSON -- 08/04/2004<BR></A><BR>
Appeal the district court's ruling that the state's statutes regulating the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel are preempted by federal law. <u>See</u> <u>Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v. The Utah officials argue that the district court should not have reached the merits of this dispute because (1) the plaintiffs who challenge the statutes
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/058EC3532F25D02588256F1C0052B980/$file/0016531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Weston was on the briefs. 13936 DREAM PALACE v. Was on the briefs. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 13937 adult oriented businesses were associated with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200512/03-1251a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Cynthia A. Catherine O'Harra were on the brief for intervenor East Tennessee Natural Gas. The proposed extension was known as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411542.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is from this judgment that Mr. Although the parties have not raised the issue here. We are obliged to consider. Since he was neither a party to nor an intended beneficiary of that agreement. We do not have the power to entertain the appeal. The essential facts are these. Was originally chartered in 1963. The amendment was approved by referendum in the Town's November election. The Town Charter was amended to contain the provision:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-2354.man.html">BISCHOFF V. OSCEOLA COUNTY (8/14/2000, NO. 99-2354)<BR></A><BR>
May dismiss a complaint determining that the Plaintiffs lack standing simply by making a credibility determination based on the contents of squarely conflicting affidavits </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/564D4A580B7317BE88256CB0000D6EA2/$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-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200614950.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This court is confronted again by a third party attempt to intervene in a long pending case to vacate injunctive relief entered below. The challenged consent decree was obtained by a class of African American plaintiffs as part of the landmark Dillard litigation that restructured much of Alabama's county level governance in accordance with the then prevailing understanding of the Voting Rights Act. (Motion for Status One of the issues presented by the merits of this appeal is whether the restrictions of Holder and Nipper apply to consent decrees where the form of the relief has been agreed to by the parties. Cumulative voting remedy was not appropriate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-8051.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <hr> The question in this case is whether three Wyoming statutes unconstitutionally limit equal access to hunting opportunities for nonresidents. We find that it is moot in light of Section 6063 of House Bill 1268. Schutz is not alone in finding Wyoming an enticing place to hunt big game. The first is a Fee Statute. The second is a Quota Statute. Schutz applied for a 2003 license to hunt bighorn sheep but decided against applying for elk or deer licenses because <hr> the licenses were too expensive. He was unwilling to hire a professional guide or find a resident guide. Finding that Schutz did not have standing to challenge the Guide Statute and that the Quota and Fee Statutes did not violate his constitutional rights. The statutes create special preferences for Wyoming residents in three ways: (1) in state hunting licenses are cheaper. (2) more licenses are allocated to residents. (3) residents are exempt from a requirement that hunters in wilderness areas obtain a guide. 1. The fee difference is applicable to every species of big and trophy game.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2009.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Barron & Stadfeld were on brief for appellee. The Gens Note was secured by a third mortgage on real property in Barnstable. Although the Barnstable Property was subject to two prior mortgages. Home Owners was declared insolvent and the Resolution Trust Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1744.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Queeney were on brief. Was on brief. The 1New Hampshire considers independent expenditures to include expenditures by a political committee for the purpose of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5405a.html">AK LEGIS CNCL V. BABBITT BRUCE<BR></A><BR>
With him <p> on the briefs was <i>Robin W. With her <p> on the brief were <i>Lois J. Erwin</i> was on the brief for <i>amici curiae</i> Dale <p> Bondurant. Featherly</i> was on the brief for <i>amici curiae</i> <p> Mary Bishop. <i>Circuit Judge</i>: The Alaska Legislative Council is <p> a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FEBFB0B55123273F8825701A004BA0F2/$file/0317068.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER The motion for an extension of time in which to file a petition for rehearing is GRANTED. Is ordered filed. Is amended as follows: Slip op. at 2261. Line 14: Replace
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1196_085.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mindful of the Supreme Court's admonition that the purpose of federal antitrust law
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/421EF751DD8E498A88256C55005A6DE9/$file/0156091.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Overview We are asked to decide whether the City of Santa Monica's refusal to permit a candidate for the City Council to designate his occupation as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/97-7097a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kinnick was on the brief. Hardy Lewis was on the brief. Were on the brief for amicus curiae United States. Baruch were on the brief for amicus curiae Harvey L. These positions would be filled by appoin tees who were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-2354.man.html">BISCHOFF V. OSCEOLA COUNTY (8/14/2000, NO. 99-2354)<BR></A><BR>
May dismiss a complaint determining that the Plaintiffs lack standing simply by making a credibility determination based on the contents of squarely conflicting affidavits </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0076n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a civil rights action. Dubuc has since achieved the outcome he was seeking. Sitting by designation. * The district court's decision is therefore VACATED and the case REMANDED with instructions to dismiss. The Michigan Supreme Court is tasked with supervision and administration of the State Bar. The state requires an applicant for membership in the bar to demonstrate that s/he
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0020p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and were contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act (
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0165p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this case is an application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Soon after the action was filed. Arguing (1) that plaintiffs lack statutory standing under RICO to pursue this case because any injury they suffered was derivative of an injury The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell. Because we reject the application of Garmon preemption in this context and because we cannot say at this early stage in the case that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient as a matter of law to establish statutory standing. Tyson's headquarters are in Springdale. One of Tyson's plants is located in Shelbyville. Soon after the indictment was filed. Tabetha Eddings and Doris Jewell former hourly workers at Tyson's Shelbyville facility who were legally employed by Tyson filed this civil RICO action against Tyson based on some of the same allegedly illegal activities underlying the criminal indictment. The amended complaint alleges that Tyson engaged in a scheme to depress the wages paid to its hourly employees by knowingly hiring undocumented illegal immigrants who were willing to work for wages well below those paid in labor markets composed of only United States citizens.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-5274.man.html">ENG'G CONTRACTORS ASS'N OF SOUTH FLORIDA V. METRO. DADE COUNTY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Eng'g Contractors Ass'n of South Florida v. Is drawn primarily from the district court's thorough opinion. UNDISPUTED FACTS<p> <p> Three affirmative action programs enacted by the Dade County Board of Commissioners are at issue in this appeal: (1) the Black Business Enterprise (
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/02a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bollinger Page 3 appeal the district court's determination that the Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 The Law School contends that its interest in achieving a diverse student body is compelling under Regents of the University of California v. That its admissions policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Law School is joined by the Intervenors: forty one individuals and three student groups. The policy states that the Law School's
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0132p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Cities argue that their ordinances are reasonable occupancy 1 Housing Advocates also named the City of Richmond Heights. Although I concur in the majority's ultimate judgment that the ordinances at issue here were reasonable. I. Housing Advocates is a
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0100p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case requires that we determine whether the Attorney General's consent is required before a private plaintiff may settle or otherwise dismiss an action under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr95/93-2933.opa.html">JACOBS V. FLORIDA BAR<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jacobs v. Was a defendant in the action but was dismissed by stipulation prior to summary judgment.<p> <p> The Supreme Court of Florida was also a defendant. It was dismissed. The issues we address today are narrow: whether Appellants have standing to challenge the rules. We also must determine whether summary judgment was proper on a vagueness challenge to one of the rules. We hold that Appellants have standing to bring their as applied challenge to the rules and that Appellees bear the burden of proving that the rules are constitutional. We also remand to the district court for a determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate with respect to Appellants' vagueness challenge. Singer are members of the Florida Bar. Seeking an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of certain rules and seeking a declaratory judgment that these rules are unconstitutional.<a href=
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053857p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Douglas El claims that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043950p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because their complaint alleges concrete and particularized injuries that are fairly traceable to Ford's behavior and redressable in court. In an unpublished opinion we will call Danvers II. The District Court held that eight of the nine named Plaintiffs
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTg5MDMgQW1lbmRlZC5wZGY=/05-8903%20Amended.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant asserts that the media have paid and continue to pay substantial attention to The sole revision to this order is the language indicating that en banc rehearing was denied. * 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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ross's case. That such news reports of Ross's execution will reach class members. That receiving this news will increase the risk that appellant or other suicide prone class members will attempt to harm themselves. The constitutional requirements of Article III standing are well known. The plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized. That the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEyNzUtY3YucGRm/05-1275-cv.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Matteis challenge the class certification on the grounds that: [1] the class contains members who have not yet been assessed tax penalties and who (according to the Matteis) therefore lack Article III and/or statutory standing. [2] the named representatives all of whom have been assessed tax penalties do not adequately represent the interests of all class members. Some of whom have not been penalized (at least as yet). P. 23(e) in failing to provide a second opt out period when the settlement terms were finalized. Deutsche Bank argues that the district court erred in approving a provision that extinguishes any claim of a nonsettling defendant or third party against a settling defendant that directly or indirectly arises out of the tax strategies and is for recovery of amounts the nonsettling defendant or third party paid or owes to the class. While bars on claims against settling defendants for contribution and indemnity are not uncommon. Which purports to compensate a nonsettling defendant or third party for the loss of claims against the settling defendants but which fails to specify the method by which the judgment credit will be calculated.
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAxOTYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0196-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Schulz was under no threat of consequence for refusal to comply and. 04 0196 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 It is well established that
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/98-6146.man.html">AM. IRON AND STEEL INST. V. OSHA (8/3/1999, NO. 98-6146)<BR></A><BR>
The separate challenges are brought by the American Iron and Steel Institute (
</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/200413083ORD.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. Concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the Eighth Amendment issue addressed in Judge Barkett's dissenting opinion. Those are intended to be
</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/200413083.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. Concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the Eighth Amendment issue addressed in Judge Barkett's dissenting opinion. Those are intended to be
</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/200412256.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Georgia voters considered a referendum that would have established a county wide police force and diminished the power of the Forsyth County Sheriff's Department.1 Most of the Department's powers would have been transferred to the county police. The Sheriff would have been under the supervision of county officials. The plaintiffs are local business owners who supported the referendum. The referendum was defeated at the polls. Were designed to intimidate the plaintiffs from opposing Hendrix's re election that year. The plaintiffs assert that the intimidation tactics were successful. The court held that the defendants were not 4 entitled to qualified immunity because they had violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Those rights were clearly established at the time. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW Although the defendants' appeal is interlocutory. We have jurisdiction to review the district court's decision on qualified immunity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and Mitchell v. Summary judgment is appropriate only
</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/200315593.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We decide whether a billboard company's challenge to a City's zoning ordinance is rendered moot by the subsequent amendment of the ordinance. We are convinced that amendments to the City's zoning code rendered this case moot and we therefore reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The City of Miami adopted a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance that is the subject matter of this suit. The ordinance was enacted with. National is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Viacom Outdoor Inc. National is a leader in the outdoor advertising industry. The notices advised the property owners that they were in violation of the City's zoning code and told the owners to correct the violations by May 2001. Was filed on February 21. National I and National II were consolidated in the district court below. The parties were asked to discuss the issues related to the permitting process in its entirety. 4 1 appealed. 2002 the City published notice of its intent to amend the Zoning ordinance and those amendments were adopted on April 11.
</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/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-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014947.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The government's appeal of his separate bond case is therefore moot. The first action is the government's effort to remove Al Najjar from the United States due to the expiration of his status as a legal alien. Which is the subject of this appeal. Is Al Najjar's bid to be released from detention on bond during the pendency of his deportation proceedings. It is the recent and final completion of the first action that renders the instant case unambiguously moot. Al Najjar was born in Gaza in 1957 and moved with his family to Saudi Arabia one year later. The basis of the allegation was a claim by Al Najjar's first wife that she had participated in a sham marriage to allow him to obtain a green card. The case against Al Najjar was closed when he failed to appear at an administrative hearing. Those proceedings were consolidated with deportation proceedings for his wife. Various individuals who have supported and engaged in terrorism in the Middle East. Federal agents arrested Al Najjar on the basis of classified information that he was connected to Middle Eastern terrorist organizations and detained him without bond on the ground that he posed a threat to national security.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/99-13138.man.html">MADE IN THE UNITED STATES FOUND. V. UNITED STATES (2/27/2001, NO. 99-13138)<BR></A><BR>
Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-11313.ord.html">SOLIMAN V. UNITED STATES (7/11/2002, NO. 01-11313)<BR></A><BR>
Because Soliman was removed from the United States and returned to his native country of Egypt on June 11. He is no longer being detained or force fed by the INS. His appeal is moot. The appeal must therefore be dismissed and the district court's order vacated.</SPAN></P> <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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913138.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
</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/199913138.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
</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/19986492.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiffs was fully enforceable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (
</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/19986492.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiffs was fully enforceable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (
</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/19982610.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are as follows. Which was directed to the Army National Bank where John Malowney and his wife. The Malowneys' funds were made unavailable to them and the Bank refused to honor checks written on their account. 2 The complaint is void of any indication that the Malowneys received notice as mandated by the Florida post judgment garnishment statute. That he may have exemptions from the garnishment which can be asserted as defenses. The only funds in the Malowneys' checking account at the time of garnishment were social security disability benefits and United States Army retirement benefits. Both of which are exempt from garnishment under federal law. All of the funds attached by the writ of garnishment were subject to exemption under federal law. Obtain dissolution of a writ of garnishment by proving that the attached funds are exempt from garnishment under federal or state law. Was dissolved on July 14. 1997.1 The only count relevant to this appeal is Count I. Because that is the only count the Malowneys discuss in their briefs to this Court.
</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/19982610.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are as follows. Which was directed to the Army National Bank where John Malowney and his wife. Sitting by designation. * Malowneys' funds were made unavailable to them and the Bank refused to honor checks written on their account. The complaint is void of any indication that the Malowneys received notice as mandated by the Florida post judgment garnishment statute. That he may have exemptions from the garnishment which can be asserted as defenses. The only funds in the Malowneys' checking account at the time of garnishment were social security disability benefits and United States Army retirement benefits. Both of which are exempt from garnishment under federal law. All of the funds attached by the writ of garnishment were subject to exemption under federal law. Obtain dissolution of a writ of garnishment by proving that the attached funds are exempt from garnishment under federal or state law. Was dissolved on July 14. 1997.1 The only count relevant to this appeal is Count I. Because that is the only count the Malowneys discuss in their briefs An amended complaint supersedes an original complaint.
</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/19975078.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That Shaq and Doe's interlocutory appeal (which is joined with CCC's) is meritless. Was only partially correct. Black plaintiffs have accused the Broward County Schools of impermissibly race conscious policies. The practical application of this policy was busing students (as it 3 turned out far more black than white) to schools outside their neighborhoods. Were special curricula designed to attract white students to mostly black schools. Was denied entry to a magnet program in a majority black school for a month at the beginning of a school year. The two individual plaintiffs were joined by CCC. Which the complaint describes as
</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/19975078.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That Shaq and Doe's interlocutory appeal (which is joined with CCC's) is meritless. Was only partially correct. Black plaintiffs have accused the Broward County Schools of impermissibly race conscious policies. The practical application of this policy was busing students (as it turned out far more black than white) to schools outside their neighborhoods. Were special curricula designed to attract white students to mostly black schools. Was denied entry to a magnet program in a majority black school for a month at the beginning of a school year. The two individual plaintiffs were joined by CCC. Which the complaint describes as
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-4295.man.html">SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY V. LEAHY (7/7/1998, NO. 97-4295)<BR></A><BR>
Minor political parties are entitled to run qualifying candidates for elected office and to identify these candidates on election ballots as members of their parties.</P> <P> Plaintiff Appellants SWP and FGP are registered minor political parties in the state of Florida. </P> <P> ...</P> <P> The answer ... is no.</P> <P> Neither the Department of State. Have authority to waive the bonding requirement....</P> <P> ....</P> <P>Upon receiving the Secretary of State's advisory opinion. Contending that the district court's denial of the TRO was tantamount to a denial of their motion for preliminary injunction. SWP and FGP moved for reconsideration.</P> <P> While their motion was pending and less than one month after the district court ruled that no case or controversy existed. This bond is required by law pursuant to section 103.121(3). Florida Statutes. <EM>Failure to file a copy of the bond will result in removal of your minor party status with this state.</EM></P> <P>(emphasis added). 1996 letter were also sent to the Libertarian Party.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-3714.man.html">JOHNSON V. DESOTO COUNTY BD. OF COMMISSIONERS (3/3/2000, NO. 98-3714)<BR></A><BR>
<A HREF=
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/02-13981.opn.html">WOMEN'S EMERGENCY NETWORK V. BUSH (3/7/2003, NO. 02-13981)<BR></A><BR>
An injunction preventing Appellees from enforcing the Act and a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional.
</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=92-1120.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Noonan and Lamond were on brief for intervenor appellants. Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights were on brief for appellee. Was on brief for appellee. The challenge to the district court's amendment to a prior consent decree is not ripe for judicial review at this time. An understanding of the litigation that led to the original consent decree and its amendment in 1991 is of interest but not necessary to the decision on this appeal. 29 C.F.R. 1607.1 et 1 MAMLEO is the successor organization to the Massachusetts Association of Afro American Police which brought the underlying suit. Was allowed to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing the amendment to the consent decree. The merits of that contention are not relevant to our decision that the case is not ripe for review. It agreed that such constraints
</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=91-2196.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellant. Kelly & Murphy was on brief for Marc DeSisto with whom Carroll. Kelly & Murphy was on brief for appellees City of East Providence and its councilmen. appellees City of East Providence and its councilmen. Was on brief for appellee whom James E. Was on brief for appellee Edward R. The federal claims were dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The pendent state law claims were dismissed without prejudice. To introduce a bill whose specific purpose was to prevent appellant from obtaining approval of its application. The bill was enacted into *Commissioner Lynch. Was a defendant in a civil defama *Commissioner Lynch. Was a defendant in a civil defama tion action brought by appellant. tion action brought by appellant. 3 law on July 6. The application was denied on August 22. Appellant took an appeal to the Liquor Control Administrator which was rendered moot as a consequence of King Drug's transfer of the license to another entity.*** II II DISCUSSION DISCUSSION The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to deprive appellant of its property without due process of law in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985(3) and that the Lynch inspired legislation violates both the United States Constitution **The enacted bill provided.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar97/95-5398.man.html">BROOKS V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Brooks v. Senior Circuit Judges.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The district court's grant of summary judgment to the Defendants is AFFIRMED based upon the holding and rationale contained in Part III.A of the district court's September 22. A copy of which is attached as Appendix A hereto. We have no occasion to reach the remaining issues addressed in other parts of that order and imply no view concerning any of them.<p> AFFIRMED.<p> ATTACHMENT<p> <p> APPENDIX A<p> <p> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. It is hereby<p> ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:<p> 1. Defendant Blue Cross's motion to dismiss the amended complaint (DE # 31) is GRANTED. Defendant New York Life's motion for instructions and an Order directed to Plaintiff's counsel (DE # 46) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant New York Life's combined motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment (DE # 47) is GRANTED. Defendant New York Life's corrected motion for more definite statement and for RICO case statement (DE # 56) is DENIED AS MOOT.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/98-6492.man.html">BOWEN V. FIRST FAMILY FIN. SERVICES (11/22/2000, NO. 98-6492)<BR></A><BR>
That the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiffs was fully enforceable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/00-14947.opn.html">AL NAJJAR V. ASHCROFT (11/28/2001, NO. 00-14947)<BR></A><BR>
The government's appeal of his separate bond case is therefore moot. The first action is the government's effort to remove Al Najjar from the United States due to the expiration of his status as a legal alien. Which is the subject of this appeal. Is Al Najjar's bid to be released from detention on bond during the pendency of his deportation proceedings. It is the recent and final completion of the first action that renders the instant case unambiguously moot. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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=04-1621.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. The SJC later held that it was an insufficient remedy under the Massachusetts Constitution merely to afford same sex partners the same benefits as married couples without also recognizing their marriage. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971796.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He also contended that the proposal would have adverse competitive effects on certain small banks. (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/99-11177.man.html">FLORIDA ASS'N OF MED. EQUIP. DEALERS V. APFEL (11/5/1999, NO. 99-11177)<BR></A><BR>
Those who wished to sell such items to the government were required to compete by submitting bids. Suppliers whose bids failed to meet competitive price and quality standards were precluded from providing these items under Medicare. Was convened. The NTEP met three times for this purpose and was not expected to. FAMED claimed that the NTEP was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971389.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The plaintiffs sued on the novel theory that they were denied a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/952475.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even were we to conclude that Burke has suffered injury in fact. I. Ron Klenk (who is not a party to this appeal) owns a late federal style building located at 348 King Street in Charleston. Which is visible from King Street. Klenk's property is located within the Old and Historic District (
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/97-5078.man.html">CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT OUR CHILDREN V. SCH. BD. OF BROWARD COUNTY (10/28/1999, NO. 97-5078)<BR></A><BR>
That Shaq and Doe's interlocutory appeal (which is joined with CCC's) is meritless. Was only partially correct.</P> <P><CENTER>I. Black plaintiffs have accused the Broward County Schools of impermissibly race conscious policies. The practical application of this policy was busing students (as it turned out far more black than white) to schools outside their neighborhoods. Were special curricula designed to attract white students to mostly black schools. Was denied entry to a magnet program in a majority black school for a month at the beginning of a school year. The two individual plaintiffs were joined by CCC. Which the complaint describes as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/012030.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is located southeast of Pittsburgh. The District Court held that the case was mooted by an amendment of the original zoning ordinance and therefore granted the Township's motion for summary judgement on all claims. Because we hold that this case is not moot. An antenna is located in the approximate center of a cell and the antenna transmits wireless signals to and from cell phone users in that cell. It is typically mounted on a tower or other tall structure. The perimeter of each cell is shaped by the topography surrounding the antenna. Where the terrain is flat. A cell is circular and several miles in diameter. Because each wireless company is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/022178u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are current and former newspaper haulers for the defendant. Alleging that they were improperly classified as independent contractors when in fact they were common law employees. Holding that plaintiffs' claims were time barred under ERISA's three2 year statute of limitations. The Court also held that the plaintiffs' alleged breach of the Plan could not give rise to fiduciary liability because Gannett's classification of defendants as independent contractors was made in a business management. Which are known to the parties. The most compelling and determinative of these is the District Court's application of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) § 413's three year statute of limitations. This argument in the District Court in support of class certification properly was ignored by the District Court in light of plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Rule 23 requirements. 3 2 did not expressly include or exclude independent contractors. The original contracts are ambiguous as to whether the haulers were to be treated as employees or independent contractors.3 In 1976.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/98-2610.man.html">MALOWNEY V. FED. COLLECTION DEPOSIT GROUP (10/29/1999, NO. 98-2610)<BR></A><BR>
Are as follows. Which was directed to the Army National Bank where John Malowney and his wife. The Malowneys' funds were made unavailable to them and the Bank refused to honor checks written on their account.</P> <P> The complaint is void of any indication that the Malowneys received notice as mandated by the Florida post judgment garnishment statute. That he may have exemptions from the garnishment which can be asserted as defenses. The Malowneys did not become aware of the garnishment until they contacted the Bank concerning their returned checks.</P> <P> The only funds in the Malowneys' checking account at the time of garnishment were social security disability benefits and United States Army retirement benefits. Both of which are exempt from garnishment under federal law. All of the funds attached by the writ of garnishment were subject to exemption under federal law. Obtain dissolution of a writ of garnishment by proving that the attached funds are exempt from garnishment under federal or state law. Was dissolved on July 14.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034162R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: My colleagues have written at length regarding their views on the issue of jurisdiction under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA). Their views are incorrect. I believe my colleagues have allowed the importance of the issues involved in the underlying merits of this appeal to cloud their judgment on the purely legal question of jurisdiction. What is now before us is an ordinary question concerning appellate jurisdiction over a discovery order. There is no question that CIPA § 7 authorizes the government to take an interlocutory appeal from an order of the district court that authorizes the disclosure of classified information to the defendant. 18 (9th Cir. 1984) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1996/96a1466p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Facts and Procedural History Ann Stehney is a mathematician. The Institute is a private think tank that conducts cryptological research the making and breaking of secret codes as a contractor for the National Security Agency. NSA must ensure that access to classified information is
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-5274.man.html">ENG'G CONTRACTORS ASS'N OF SOUTH FLORIDA V. METRO. DADE COUNTY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Eng'g Contractors Ass'n of South Florida v. Is drawn primarily from the district court's thorough opinion. UNDISPUTED FACTS<p> <p> Three affirmative action programs enacted by the Dade County Board of Commissioners are at issue in this appeal: (1) the Black Business Enterprise (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1567p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are here asked to decide whether a victim of a privately executed wiretap can successfully move to quash a subpoena duces tecum directing the perpetrator of the wiretap to convey recordings of unlawfully intercepted communications to a grand jury. We will reverse the district court and remand with orders that the subpoena duces tecum be quashed. We will not refer to the parties by their proper names. We will also limit our recitation of the facts to the minimum necessary to explain and resolve the issues presented. The relevant facts are undisputed. Appellant intervenor John Doe 1 is the target of a federal grand jury investigation (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031860.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both originated in state court and were removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. They were later consolidated. The basic claim was that GTA and the individuals violated Exro's right to litigation proceeds that GTA recovered in a patent infringement suit. I GTA is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in Virginia.1 Exro is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Columbia. The DRA is a product GTA developed that. Two of these managers were Exro directors. The other two were GTA directors. The Operating Agreement says that these initial capital contributions were to be contributed as of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/06-5133a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was E. Green was on the brief for amici curiae American Medical Association et al. in support of appellant. With her on the brief were Jeffrey S. Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is standing to challenge a regulatory safe harbor where the direct cause of injury is the independent action of a third party. The same issue was before this court in National Wrestling Coaches Ass'n v. Though the factual context there was very different.
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5212a.html">U.S. V. MICROSOFT<BR></A><BR>
Holley argued the causes for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-1242a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/04-1200a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200611/05-5196b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. I Veitch is an evangelical Protestant minister in the Reformed Episcopal Church. There seems to be little doubt that the 3 relationship between the two was quite unfriendly. Buchmiller repeatedly criticized him for his insistence on preaching sola scriptura the doctrine that Biblical teaching alone is authoritative. Which is accepted by many Protestant faiths but rejected by Catholic and Orthodox churches. Was assigned to investigate Veitch's complaint. Zoeller concluded that Veitch's allegation of religious discrimination was unsubstantiated. Zoeller also found that Veitch's preaching was derogatory toward other faiths. Veitch claims that he was on the verge of filing a second EO Complaint in response to Buchmiller's continued hostility. Veitch's rebarbative missive was a four page broadside attack on Buchmiller's command and character. Veitch was presented with a charge sheet in February. He was charged with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200611/04-5350b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O:\Slip\WP\2006\04 5350 Abigail Alli Reh'g22aa.odl.wpd
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Peter D. At issue is a white male employee's challenge to a government agency's affirmative action policy that allegedly deprives him of the opportunity to compete for job openings on an even playing field. We have jurisdiction over neither. Is unripe. Will adversely affect his prospects for advancement. Cir. 1999) (requiring plaintiff to have suffered an adverse employment action to prevail in a Title VII suit). While that motion was pending. MD 715 declares that agencies have
|
|
AM. IRON AND STEEL INST. V. OSHA (8/3/1999, NO. 98-6146)
The separate challenges are brought by the American Iron and Steel Institute (
|
|
CLIFTON POWER CORPORATION V. FERC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That six metric tons2 of surplus plutonium will be transferred from Rocky Flats to SRS for long term storage. That it had failed to comply with NEPA procedures prior Plutonium is a highly radioactive. Pits) at the core of modern nuclear weapons are largely composed (at least 93%) of a particular type of plutonium Plutonium 239. We will review the pertinent facts and legal principles governing the NEPA issues presented.5 II. When these requests were denied. 2002. 5 Certain national and local media were Parties in Interest in the district court. That ruling is not at issue in this appeal. That ruling is also not before us. 3 6 HODGES v. Unilaterally announced that a total of 38.2 metric tons of our plutonium was no longer necessary for defense purposes. The use of the terms
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Richard E. With him on the brief were Greg Abbott. With him on the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief were Robert J. Mogilnicki were on the brief for amici curiae The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Code § 7 2502.01 prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in the District of Columbia unless it is validly registered. It is no t possible in the District to purchase and lawfully possess a new pistol or indeed any pistol not registered here three decades ago. Subject to exceptions for firearms kept at places of business or firearms that are being lawfully used for recreationa l purposes in the District. Plaintiff Jordan is the only plaintiff who owns a pistol. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 plaintiffs seek a declaration that the challenged provisions are unlawful. To meet the
|
|
HUMANE SCTY US V. BABBITT BRUCE
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the briefs was Paul V. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Because the petition is incurably premature. 000 proposed by the staff of the Commission being $200 for each of 740 days of noncompliance was
|
|
LEG ASST VIETNAMESE V. DOS
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were John L. Prabhu were on the brief of amici curiae The Association for Competitive Technology and Computing Technology Industry Association in support of appellant. Burton was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism in support of appellant. Getman was on the brief for amicus curiae Association for Objective Law in support of appellant. With them on the brief were A. Naughton were on the brief for amici curiae America Online. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Lee A. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Carl Lundgren. There are three principal aspects of this appeal. Because the substantive provisions of the order are flawed. Microsoft asserts that the trial judge committed ethical violations by engaging in impermissible ex parte contacts and making inappropriate public comments on the merits of the case while it was pending. The oral arguments before this court we find that some but not all of Microsoft's liability challenges have merit. There are several reasons supporting this conclusion.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Mark Gravitte is a law enforcement officer with the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Which contends that it has not engaged in the misconduct attributed to the major tobacco manufacturers and was not sued by any of the States. Asserts that it will be unjustly burdened by the requirements of the Master Settlement Agreement and the legislation that Virginia enacted pursuant to the agreement. Which was known as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was David J. With her on the brief were Lois J. With him on the brief were Steven J. The agency's authority to compel high quality disposition of such waste is not as great as it is for as yet undisposed of waste. EPA promulgated a regula tion under s 3004(m) allowing variances from generally appli cable treatment standards if
|
|
02-4109 -- RAISER V. U.S. -- 11/27/2002
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Aaron Raiser appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Filed this suit seeking nominal damages of $1 and to have the district court retroactively require state and federal governments to administer the death penalty only in a manner consistent with his proposed standards. Raiser contends the failure of the United States to follow his standards will deprive him of the right to assemble with prisoners who eventually may be released due to their actual innocence. We review the district court's judgment that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See U.S. One of the most important doctrines within this requirement is that the litigant have
|
|
03-4046 -- MORGAN V. MCCOTTER -- 04/21/2004
Plaintiff claimed that he was deprived of a property interest in his continued employment with the State of Utah as a career service employee without due process of law when he was terminated
|
|
99-1344 -- WEINMAN V. FIDELITY CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND -- 08/21/2001
Any and all additional parties who either have joined or will join the said Committee. Circuit Judge.
|
|
CHRISMAN V. COMMISSIONER
Sheehan's name was spelled incorrectly as Sheenan. The correct spelling is Sheehan. The Plaintiffs clearly lack standing to bring this action and likewise have not presented a case or controversy. Seeking to have their case certified as a class action and alleging the IRS' failure to comply with various constitutional and statutory requirements in its tax collection efforts. Until the statutes were administered properly. Definitively assert why they may have standing or may have presented a justiciable case or controversy. They have presented the court with what appears to be a pitiable regurgitation of the generalized arguments introduced below. As Plaintiffs' arguments on appeal are incapable of persuading the court on the question presented. The pleadings below are insufficient to vest the district court with jurisdiction. II 4 We think it is useful to set out the concept of standing that leads us to our conclusion.
|
|
97-9506 -- AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- 09/01/1998
The EPA must approve the program. See id. The EPA retains oversight authority over state permit programs and may withdraw its approval of a particular program if it determines the state is not complying with the Act. See id.
|
|
97-5003 -- U.S. V. SCHAD -- 04/22/1998
We conclude Allied lacks standing and dismiss the appeal. I. Schad pleaded guilty to three counts of mail fraud and was sentenced to a term of four years' imprisonment.
|
|
JACOBS V. FLORIDA BAR
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Jacobs v. Was a defendant in the action but was dismissed by stipulation prior to summary judgment.<p> <p> The Supreme Court of Florida was also a defendant. It was dismissed. The issues we address today are narrow: whether Appellants have standing to challenge the rules. We also must determine whether summary judgment was proper on a vagueness challenge to one of the rules. We hold that Appellants have standing to bring their as applied challenge to the rules and that Appellees bear the burden of proving that the rules are constitutional. We also remand to the district court for a determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate with respect to Appellants' vagueness challenge. Singer are members of the Florida Bar. Seeking an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of certain rules and seeking a declaratory judgment that these rules are unconstitutional.<a href=
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1181.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Shepard M. Of counsel on the brief were Allyn Z. With him on the brief were Robert L. Each of which covers and is directed to various aspects of Famvir®. The '937 patent is directed to the active ingredient in Famvir®. While the remaining Orange Book patents are directed to methods of therapeutic use (
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-6003.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Joan M. Who was employed by GAO. Ordering GAO to increase Davis' performance appraisals and awarding Davis back pay in the amount she would have received had the appraisals been conducted properly. Which was substantially higher than the $150.00 hourly rate Willis actually charged Davis. The Administrative Judge reduced the total number of hours Davis claimed for Willis' work by 20 percent because of the inconsistent quality of Willis' pretrial filings and the fact that the majority of Davis' claims were ultimately rejected. If he or she is the prevailing party. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 755(a). DISCUSSION The necessary threshold question in this case is whether Willis has standing to appeal the Board's decision to this court. Willis' primary theory of standing is that she has a right to receive fee payments under the statute separate and apart from her client's right to fees. This theory of standing is essential to Willis' claim for fees for the trial work fees that were not included in Davis' fee request.
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5144.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Michael B. This is a suit for a refund of patent fees alleged to have been unlawfully exacted. Because the statute was designed to generate revenue to fund federal programs other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office (
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1618.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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 (
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F4D3A1D6C33176BB88256B25006141CB/$file/9916102.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: At issue in these consolidated cross appeals is whether the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's provision of Incidental Take Statements pursuant to the Endangered Species Act was arbitrary and capricious under Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Each of the Incidental Take Statements was set aside. Where there either was no evidence that the endangered species existed on the land or no evidence that a take would occur if the permit were issued. We also find that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue terms and conditions so vague as to preclude compliance therewith. Analyzes twenty species of plants and animals and concludes that the livestock grazing program was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species affected nor was likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of the designated or proposed critical habitat. The matter was adjudicated by way of cross motions for summary judgment. It then held that the Fish and Wildlife Service's issuance of an Incidental Take Statement for both the razorback sucker and the pygmy owl was arbitrary and capricious.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-1416a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Tobey was on brief for the intervenor. Was neither fairly traceable to nor redressable in the transfer proceeding. Was neither traceable to Commission approval of the transfer nor redressable by reversal thereof. A com plainant must allege (1) a personal injury in fact that is (2)
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD7EC45CE5FFA89B88257065005746B3/$file/0371439.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the EPA did have the authority to consider jeopardy to listed species in making the transfer decision. The EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The state transfer provisions of § 1342(b) have proven popular. Arizona was the forty fifth state to obtain pollution permitting authority from the EPA. If the Administrator determines that the state is not following those standards. Each agency must
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-13138.man.html">MADE IN THE UNITED STATES FOUND. V. UNITED STATES (2/27/2001, NO. 99-13138)<BR></A><BR>
Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/01-11313.ord.html">SOLIMAN V. UNITED STATES (7/11/2002, NO. 01-11313)<BR></A><BR>
Because Soliman was removed from the United States and returned to his native country of Egypt on June 11. He is no longer being detained or force fed by the INS. His appeal is moot. The appeal must therefore be dismissed and the district court's order vacated.</SPAN></P> <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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-4295.man.html">SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY V. LEAHY (7/7/1998, NO. 97-4295)<BR></A><BR>
Minor political parties are entitled to run qualifying candidates for elected office and to identify these candidates on election ballots as members of their parties.</P> <P> Plaintiff Appellants SWP and FGP are registered minor political parties in the state of Florida. </P> <P> ...</P> <P> The answer ... is no.</P> <P> Neither the Department of State. Have authority to waive the bonding requirement....</P> <P> ....</P> <P>Upon receiving the Secretary of State's advisory opinion. Contending that the district court's denial of the TRO was tantamount to a denial of their motion for preliminary injunction. SWP and FGP moved for reconsideration.</P> <P> While their motion was pending and less than one month after the district court ruled that no case or controversy existed. This bond is required by law pursuant to section 103.121(3). Florida Statutes. <EM>Failure to file a copy of the bond will result in removal of your minor party status with this state.</EM></P> <P>(emphasis added). 1996 letter were also sent to the Libertarian Party.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-3714.man.html">JOHNSON V. DESOTO COUNTY BD. OF COMMISSIONERS (3/3/2000, NO. 98-3714)<BR></A><BR>
<A HREF=
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CE8A914332C91C588256E94007D30FC/$file/0216754.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is sufficiently within the statutory zone of interest to have prudential standing to bring an action under § 1981. Inc. (
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/02-13981.opn.html">WOMEN'S EMERGENCY NETWORK V. BUSH (3/7/2003, NO. 02-13981)<BR></A><BR>
An injunction preventing Appellees from enforcing the Act and a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. We conclude that each of the three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. Another is automatically reloaded into the gun's chamber. 27 C.F.R. § 178.11 (defining semiautomatic weapons). LOCKYER restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4AAE4F43DAAAE5C688256BF200768CEB/$file/9971536.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Bonneville Power Administration (
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/49768F4A0D67D84188256D56007458B3/$file/0115958.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plaintiffs appeal the district court's determination that the mall is a nonpublic forum. Its ruling that City ordinances restricting soliciting and tabling were constitutional. The City of Las Vegas cross appeals the district court's determination that City ordinances limiting leafleting and vending were unconstitutional. We reverse the district court's conclusion that it is a nonpublic forum. We hold that the Fremont Street Experience is a public forum. We affirm the district court's conclusion that they are unconstitutional. 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 elements 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-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/97-1098a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Wallace Edward Brand was on the briefs. Was on the brief. Prisco were on the brief for intervenor Central Louisiana Electric Company. Where there is a competitive market. The Commission approves appli cations to sell electric energy at market based rates only if the seller and its affiliates do not have. Or adequately have mitigated. Arguing that CLECO does in fact have market 1 FERC defines market power as a seller's ability to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001921.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar97/95-5398.man.html">BROOKS V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Brooks v. Senior Circuit Judges.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The district court's grant of summary judgment to the Defendants is AFFIRMED based upon the holding and rationale contained in Part III.A of the district court's September 22. A copy of which is attached as Appendix A hereto. We have no occasion to reach the remaining issues addressed in other parts of that order and imply no view concerning any of them.<p> AFFIRMED.<p> ATTACHMENT<p> <p> APPENDIX A<p> <p> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. It is hereby<p> ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:<p> 1. Defendant Blue Cross's motion to dismiss the amended complaint (DE # 31) is GRANTED. Defendant New York Life's motion for instructions and an Order directed to Plaintiff's counsel (DE # 46) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant New York Life's combined motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment (DE # 47) is GRANTED. Defendant New York Life's corrected motion for more definite statement and for RICO case statement (DE # 56) is DENIED AS MOOT.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/12C322D4C95EA54388256E97005775C6/$file/0216754.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is sufficiently within the statutory zone of interest to have prudential standing to bring an action under § 1981. Inc. (
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0ABCF760237A199288256E5A00707D8F/$file/9916102.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: At issue in these consolidated cross appeals is whether the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's provision of Incidental Take Statements pursuant to the Endangered Species Act was arbitrary and capricious under Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Each of the Incidental Take Statements was set aside. Where there either was no evidence that the endangered species existed on the land or no evidence that a take would occur if the permit were issued. We also find that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue terms and conditions so vague as to preclude compliance therewith. Analyzes twenty species of plants and animals and concludes that the livestock grazing program was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species affected nor was likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of the designated or proposed critical habitat. The matter was adjudicated by way of cross motions for summary judgment. It then held that the Fish and Wildlife Service's issuance of an Incidental Take Statement for both the razorback sucker and the pygmy owl was arbitrary and capricious.
</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/98/08/971582P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bloom was hired as a clerical worker with Group Health. A few months after Bloom was hired. The union sent Bloom the following letter: Our office has been informed that you are now working for Group Health. We have never received an Application for Membership or a Voluntary Dues Checkoff Card from you. He requested an itemization of how union dues were spent and reimbursement for the dues that had already been withheld. It is a part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Office and Professional Employees International Union. Inc. that you must become a member of the Union thirty one days after you are hired. I shall have no alternative but to request GHI that your employment be terminated. It is my sincere hope that you will choose to join Local 12 and return the cards to this office as we have requested. The parties' stipulation of facts and motion to transfer the proceedings to the Board were approved. While the case was pending. Bloom's complaint was then summarily dismissed. We concluded
</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/97/10/963752P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On reconsideration it concluded that the section is unconstitutional and reinstated the action with leave for Lyon to request in forma pauperis status. Their request for interlocutory review was granted. He had $138.40 in his prison account and $64.52 in his prison savings account and was receiving $67.20 in prison wages each month. His initial request for in forma pauperis status was denied because he had at least three prior actions which had been dismissed as frivolous and section 1915(g) therefore requires full payment of the filing fee unless the prisoner is in
</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/96/09/953427P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Including: it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law (JAML) on Karcher's failureto promote and retaliation claims. 3) that it is entitled to a new trial because of erroneous evidentiary rulings and erroneous jury instructions. Karcher was an employee of Alco Controls (Alco). Who are represented by District No. 9. At least one third of the union employees are female. There were only three basic types of equipment in the machine shop. Set up workers and The set up workers manually calibrated the machines to manufacture a particular refrigerator part and were then responsible for maintaining the machine so that it would produce consistently accurate parts. After the machine was set up. Where the adjustments in the machines were set up by computer. tooling had previously been made by hand. They agree that the new jobs were classified as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/97-5009a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the briefs. Stanley was on the briefs. Frey was on the brief for amicus curiae Phar maceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Hedg peth were on the brief for amicus curiae The Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research. I. This appeal is but the latest chapter in the ongoing saga of Animal Legal Defense Fund. The plaintiffs' principal argument was that. It was joined by a different group of individual co plaintiffs: Roseann Circelli. The
</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/06/08/052978P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Porter was originally joined by a second plaintiff. Only Porter's claim is before us. Norman was removed from one of the HDCs and taken to a private facility. That was three months after the initial action was filed in this case. He is no longer a party. Porter is a forty nine year old individual with moderate mental retardation and developmental disabilities. This appeal stems from a time when Porter was confined at one of the six Arkansas HDCs. Porter was admitted to the HDCs voluntarily by the authority of Gibson. There are several sources of legal protection currently afforded to persons in situations like Porter's. HDCs have supplemented the statutory protections with internal policies and procedures. There are also adversarial administrative proceedings to determine proper treatment and placement. Because HDCs are Medicaid eligible facilities. There are also numerous protections under the Medicaid regime. There were no judicial hearings to review Porter's admission to. Porter filed his complaint alleging that the procedures governing admission and continuing placement were constitutionally infirm.
</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/06/02/051795P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are unconstitutional and preempted by the Federal Election Campaign Act. Concluding that Appellants have standing. Appellants assert that these activities are expressly permitted by FECA and its implementing regulations. Appellants have refrained from making political contributions because they
</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/03/02/022387P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The amount of funds actually contributed to the pension plan was less than the amount contemplated by Ordinance 4343. The fire fighters requested
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/99/99-1492.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Terry Young were collectively convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Cox and Young were also convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. Mohammad Mansoori was convicted of engaging in monetary transactions involving funds derived from criminal activity. 99 3623 was convicted of money laundering. Who were engaged in narcotics trafficking had organized a drug deal that. Was assigned to transfer the cocaine from White to another TVL member. Once Bronson was in possession of the cocaine. Mohammad Mansoori was not a member of TVL. Choice were all members of TVL. Was in charge of the drug sales. Mansoori made several large cash payments to contractors for a house he was having built in Highland Park. He used Young's money to make the purchase and understood that the house was actually Young's. An IRS agent testified that he did not think that Young could have purchased the property with his legitimate sources of income. The defendants were using to conduct their narcotics business.
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4069.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Manufacturing and returns were separate departments. Though employees of both were represented by the International Leather Goods. Panasonic was interested in the manufacturing facilities but not Universal's returns department. Some of the returns employees were not hired under this preference. Affiliations have changed. MUMS now is TUMS. Now is Local 2000 of the SEIU. The body representing MUMS' employees is Chapter 352 of Local 2000. Plaintiffs are not parties to the collective bargaining agreement. (b) Universal had not been served with process and thus is not a party to begin with. Service should have been the lead item in plaintiffs' appellate brief. If Universal is not a party to the case then their claim has little prospect of success. Which is too late. Is that Panasonic and Universal formed a joint venture or partnership in the months between the outset of negotiations and the formation of MUMS. Suppose that this is so though we very much doubt it. It was MUMS and Universal. It was MUMS. Universal have failed to observe the formalities of corporate (or LLC) life.
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3208.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inmate Aaron Fillmore claims that he was maliciously treated by both the Crush and the officers in the Segregation Unit during a transfer to the Center's Segregation Unit. Some of his claims were handled by the court and others were resolved by a jury. He was unsuccessful across the board. We conclude that further proceedings are necessary on some of Fillmore's excessive force claims. I Our account of the facts is drawn in large part from the parties'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199711/96-1311a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were William E. In 1995 Free Air's application was dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. After Free Air was dismissed. Of which Dawson's was the only one not to have been denied by the ALJ. (The denials of the other four were not and still are not final. As those applicants have not exercised their rights to secure review by the full Commission.). Will not exercise the requi site control over the station. Be cause of Free Air's lack of standing.1 To have standing under Article III of the Constitution. That the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1130_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A vote of the active members of the Court was requested. A majority has voted to deny the petition.OE The petition is therefore DENIED. My vote to deny the petition for rehearing en banc is not premised upon a conclusion that the taxpayer standing issue as addressed in the panel opinion is free from doubt. The position set forth in the dissent is one which could eventually command high court endorsement. OE Chief Judge Flaum and Judge Easterbrook have written opinions concurring in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Sykes have joined. The subject is both recurring and difficult. There is considerable force in Judge Ripple's dissent. My vote to deny rehearing rests on a conclusion that this is not the right forum for that further deliberation. The principal difficulty with arguments pro and con about taxpayer standing is that the doctrine is arbitrary. Held that taxpayer suits about religious outlays are special but declined to overrule Frothingham v. Plaintiffs in this litigation do not say that they have paid one extra penny because of the grant.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/98-6492.man.html">BOWEN V. FIRST FAMILY FIN. SERVICES (11/22/2000, NO. 98-6492)<BR></A><BR>
That the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiffs was fully enforceable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3571_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The IGRA allows tribes to operate casinos on their reservations or on lands held in trust for their benefit by the Secretary of the Interior (
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/00-14947.opn.html">AL NAJJAR V. ASHCROFT (11/28/2001, NO. 00-14947)<BR></A><BR>
The government's appeal of his separate bond case is therefore moot. The first action is the government's effort to remove Al Najjar from the United States due to the expiration of his status as a legal alien. Which is the subject of this appeal. Is Al Najjar's bid to be released from detention on bond during the pendency of his deportation proceedings. It is the recent and final completion of the first action that renders the instant case unambiguously moot. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/99-11177.man.html">FLORIDA ASS'N OF MED. EQUIP. DEALERS V. APFEL (11/5/1999, NO. 99-11177)<BR></A><BR>
Those who wished to sell such items to the government were required to compete by submitting bids. Suppliers whose bids failed to meet competitive price and quality standards were precluded from providing these items under Medicare. Was convened. The NTEP met three times for this purpose and was not expected to. FAMED claimed that the NTEP was an
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0192p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are they permitted to approach the suspect and inquire whether he now wants to talk. Are they precluded from acting on that information because it was not communicated to them directly by the suspect? Where he was arrested two months later by local police.
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0900n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plaintiffs say the Defendants designed and constructed residences that were not accessible to handicapped persons as required by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/97-5078.man.html">CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT OUR CHILDREN V. SCH. BD. OF BROWARD COUNTY (10/28/1999, NO. 97-5078)<BR></A><BR>
That Shaq and Doe's interlocutory appeal (which is joined with CCC's) is meritless. Was only partially correct.</P> <P><CENTER>I. Black plaintiffs have accused the Broward County Schools of impermissibly race conscious policies. The practical application of this policy was busing students (as it turned out far more black than white) to schools outside their neighborhoods. Were special curricula designed to attract white students to mostly black schools. Was denied entry to a magnet program in a majority black school for a month at the beginning of a school year. The two individual plaintiffs were joined by CCC. Which the complaint describes as
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/98-2610.man.html">MALOWNEY V. FED. COLLECTION DEPOSIT GROUP (10/29/1999, NO. 98-2610)<BR></A><BR>
Are as follows. Which was directed to the Army National Bank where John Malowney and his wife. The Malowneys' funds were made unavailable to them and the Bank refused to honor checks written on their account.</P> <P> The complaint is void of any indication that the Malowneys received notice as mandated by the Florida post judgment garnishment statute. That he may have exemptions from the garnishment which can be asserted as defenses. The Malowneys did not become aware of the garnishment until they contacted the Bank concerning their returned checks.</P> <P> The only funds in the Malowneys' checking account at the time of garnishment were social security disability benefits and United States Army retirement benefits. Both of which are exempt from garnishment under federal law. All of the funds attached by the writ of garnishment were subject to exemption under federal law. Obtain dissolution of a writ of garnishment by proving that the attached funds are exempt from garnishment under federal or state law. Was dissolved on July 14.
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0342p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The LPO's first claim is that Ohio's policy mandating strict compliance with election laws violates the Constitution. We do not have jurisdiction to address it. Which is not moot. Is that the combination of two Ohio election regulations the requirement that all political parties nominate their candidates via primary election and the requirement that all minor political parties file a petition with the Secretary 120 days in advance of the primary imposes an unconstitutional burden on its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of free association. As the regulations are not narrowly tailored and do not advance a compelling state interest. States have pushed back the dates of their primary elections to the beginning of the primary election cycle. The issue in this case is whether the move to accommodate the major parties has placed an impermissible burden on the constitutional rights of minor parties. Primaries are held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. When the primaries are held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0327p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
May Ridge was to pay $242. The parties agreed that May Ridge's obligations under the Lease were to be secured3 inter alia. May Ridge was to maintain a minimum net worth
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D971CE9443AF2981882571B50058B9BA/$file/0471432.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are obligated before reaching the merits of NIRS's NEPA challenge to determine whether NIRS has standing to bring its complaint in federal court. NRC is authorized to regulate the use and pos 8210 NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE v. DOT is authorized to designate material as hazardous and to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation of such material. 49 U.S.C. §§ 5103(a).
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D39F2722CAFA5BC688256E980073F459/$file/0116037.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
California *Arnold Schwarzenegger is substituted for his predecessor. As the Board was named at the time. Ruling that parole board members are entitled to We discuss in more detail the rescission of McQuillion's parole date in McQuillion v. It is not cognizable under § 1983.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0B2D3557486B9D488256E31005D99FA/$file/0236000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. It was across the street from a gravel pit. The landfill operation was approved initially and then overseen by District 7 Health Department according to an Operational Plan as required by Idaho regulations. Responsibility for regulatory oversight of solid waste facilities is split between the State Department of Environmental Quality (
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CB340BA134E0B81688256CBB005A9417/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: 1 At Slip Op. at 7. We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. LOCKYER 1119 three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Imposes significant restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. Id. § 12285(c).3 Approximately forty models of firearms are listed in the statute as subject to its restrictions. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1132.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Appellant Qwest Corporation asks us to determine whether it was obligated to seek state utility commission approval of a contract in which it agreed to provide MCImetro Access Transmission Services. A former subsidiary of AT&T which was divested pursuant to a consent decree between AT&T and the United States government. Qwest is known as a Bell operating company (
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<!-- End of real page content -->
<!-- kludgy empty paragraph acts as spacer -->
<P></P>
<!-- This is the place for the lower nav bar and footer -->
<!-- the following is Mason-included: footer.htm -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close extra div (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close middle (opened in header.htm) -->
<div id="footer">
<div class="footerNav">
<div><!-- getting ridiculous, i know -->
<ul>
<li><a href="/lii.html" class="nav">about us</a></li>
<li><a href="/help/" class="nav">help</a></li>
<li><a href="/comments/credits.html" class="nav">© copyright</a></li>
</ul>
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close ridiculous div -->
</div><!-- close footerNav -->
</div><!-- close footer -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close collection (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close ours (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close container (opened in header.htm) -->
<!-- end of included footer -->
</BODY>
</HTML>
<!-- end of HTML -->
<!-- code from here on down -->
<!-- input arguments are:
a query (optional)
-->
<!-- to begin with...
This init block sets up and runs the query.
-->
<!-- select correct options based on scope -->
|
