Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Testified in his affidavit that the shop was certified by and performed repair work for many insurance companies. They were the official body shop for Heintzelman's Truck Center in Orlando. Gager also testified that Bruce and the shop were well respected in the local automotive industry as a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This matter is before the court on Appellant's petition for panel rehearing of the order and judgment issued July 25. We grant the petition in part for the purpose of providing factual corrections which have no bearing on the disposition of Mr. Adding a sentence to explain that the razor blade incident was later expunged from his disciplinary prison record. Is vacated and replaced with the amended Order and Judgment attached to this Order. It is undisputed Mr. Jordan was serving a sentence for one count of armed bank robbery and a sentence for another count of armed bank robbery and possession of a firearm in relation to a (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Jordan was imprisoned at the Federal Correctional Complex in Florence. Jordan was confined at federal prisons in Allenwood. Where he was classified as a high security risk based on his significant history of violent and disruptive behavior stemming from numerous infractions. Jordan in a dry cell after he was accused that day of murdering another inmate with an eleven inch sharpened piece of metal while in the main recreation yard.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Congress's passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
|
|
FDIC V. LACENTRA TRUCKING, INC. (10/16/1998, NO. 96-4118)
Section 1821(d)(13)(D) provides that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Impartial hearing officers (
|
|
FDIC V. LACENTRA TRUCKING, INC. (10/16/1998, NO. 96-4118)
Section 1821(d)(13)(D) provides that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Impartial hearing officers (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We accepted jurisdiction and have consolidated them for purposes of decision. 3084.6(c).1 If the issue is not resolved during the informal appeal. The grievant next proceeds to the first formal appeal There are eight situations in which attempted resolution at the informal level is not required. The informal level is not required when a grievance involves
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sitting by designation. * The main issue in this appeal is whether a federal court must consider evidence first presented to the Social Security Appeals Council when it decides whether to
|
|
02-2214 -- CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR -- 07/27/2004
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The heart of this dispute is a 2001 Solicitation for Offers issued by Interior for the provision of office space to house the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. 072 provides
|
|
BINGAMAN V. DEPT. OF TREASURY
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The basic law underlying Dia's substantive claims is clear. He is unable or unwilling to return to his home country
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The question before this Court is what administrative priority. Should be given to a Chapter 11 postpetition commercial lease that is subsequently breached after Chapter 7 conversion. We will continue to refer to the landlord as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Bankston was fired from his job as OSHA officer for the Department of the Army on February 25. Which was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Whether a plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies as required before filing suit is a question of law which we BANKSTON v. See 5 U.S.C. § 7702 (providing procedures for
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
National Union and Gulf sought to rescind insurance policies which they had issued and under which City Savings and the RTC were seeking coverage. National Union and Gulf were jurisdictionally barred from raising certain affirmative defenses to the RTC's counterclaim. We will affirm the district court's holding that under FIRREA the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over National Union and Gulf's declaratory judgment action. We will reverse the district court's holding that under FIRREA National Union and Gulf are barred from raising affirmative defenses to the counterclaim. Sent a letter to National Union and Gulf providing notice that City Federal might have suffered a loss covered by the insurance policies as a result of dishonest or fraudulent acts of City Federal employees. City Federal was declared insolvent by the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
District Judge.** Appeal by plaintiff school from district court's ruling that the Department of Education was authorized by statute to determine the liability of the school to the Department in an administrative hearing. That the school was estopped from relitigating the determinations made at the administrative hearing. United States Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings is automatically substituted for former United States Secretary of Education Richard W. The Clerk of the Court is requested to amend the official caption to match the above. Ruling that the Department was authorized to conduct an administrative proceeding to assess liability against the School. There is no material distinction between the Department of Education and the Secretary of Education.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Almost eight hours passed between the time when he first reported feeling sick and when he was finally taken to a doctor. Is a federal prisoner housed at the United States Penitentiary. Was convicted on November 28. Is currently serving a 262 month sentence. Kikumura's cell at 2:50 p.m. and observed that he
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. The material facts underlying this appeal are not in dispute. Which is in the business of. Some changes were made. The lease contained a stipulation from TWA that the liquidated damages provision contained in the original lease was valid. Authorizing TWA to make whatever payments were necessary to cure its past default and to continue to meet its obligations coming due under the lease on or after March 31. The order made clear that TWA was not assuming the lease pursuant to section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Was retaining its right to petition the court for an order authorizing either the assumption or rejection of the lease in the future. TWA concedes that the planes were returned in worse mechanical condition than required under the lease. Its efforts were unavailing. Interface was forced to place the two L 1011s in long term or
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which was paid. We hold that the district court should have exercised its discretion to abstain. We will vacate the district court's judgment and remand with instructions that the district court dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. We asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the question of whether the district court properly should have abstained from entertaining the plaintiffs' claims under the abstention doctrine announced by the Supreme Court in Younger v. Appeals from the traffic court's decisions were heard by the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. A parking ticket is affixed to the vehicle. The owner of the ticketed vehicle is sent a notice by first class mail. The person to whom the ticket is issued has fifteen days to answer it. A failure to answer or to pay the fine will result in a Bureau of Administrative Adjudication (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was a police officer for the Village of Mount Prospect. Sergeant George Steiner was a member of the Board. Garcia's deposition was used by Martinez in responding to the Village's ultimately unsuccessful motion for summary judgment.2 1 The Board is comprised of five (5) people: two Village Board of Trustees presidential appointees. Although Garcia was disclosed as a witness in the Final Pretrial Order. Nothing in the record indicates that Garcia himself or his deposition were actually used by Martinez at trial. Was so disturbed by evidence of the Village Police Department's racial profiling policies presented during the trial. After the verdict was entered. The Board selected three physicians to examine Garcia to determine if he was disabled. 40 Ill. While clear that Garcia was disabled. The hearing was continued in order to later consider whether the duty related benefits were warranted. Hearings were held on May 12. Where additional evidence was submitted. At no time during any of the three hearings were any claims of employment discrimination made to the Board.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Commissioner of Social Security Page 2 decision to terminate benefits was impermissibly based in part upon an invalid. (iii) that the Commissioner's underlying benefit determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Hollon was born on December 3. The Social Security Administration determined that Joseph's asthma was disabling. Based on the agency's determination that her son was no longer disabled. 2000 that it was adhering to its determination that Joseph was no longer eligible for SSI benefits. Hollon was further advised of her right to seek review of this decision by an Administrative Law Judge (
|
 |
HAZANI V. USITC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Facts DART is a regional transportation authority created under Background 1 Chapter 452 of the Texas Transportation Code. This delay was Eby made little progress. caused by numerous deficiencies and inaccuracies in the designs that were contained in DART's bid solicitation. DART's Administrative Dispute Resolution Process DART's bid solicitation for the light rail project which is incorporated into the parties' contract as an exhibit contains a provision stating that the bidder. They were promulgated in accordance with express statutory authority. The regulations further explain that the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We are asked to determine whether the district court properly dismissed a prisoner's complaint for failing to exhaust all available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Even though the prisoner's administrative appeal was deemed time barred and no further level of appeal remained in the state prison's internal appeals process. This is an issue of first impression in our Circuit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. Background Viet Mike Ngo is currently serving a life sentence at Avenal State Prison in California. Ngo was incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison. Ngo was placed in administrative segregation on October 26. Ngo was placed back in the general prison population. Ngo was restricted from participating in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Opinion issued 6/27/00 is vacated PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT STERLING DREW. These injuries were allegedly caused by the birth control drug Depo Provera. Is an enlisted serviceman on active duty with the Air Force. Drew was negligently given Depo Provera while she was pregnant with Sterling. Sterling was born with physical malformations (including an imperforate anus and a ventricular septal defect in his heart). He will continue to suffer from various other genetic and developmental disorders. Drew was not given DepoProvera while pregnant. Asserting that it was not encompassed within the administrative claim filed with the Air Force. It is from this dismissal order that the plaintiffs appeal. Drew was encouraged by various medical personnel at Shaw to use Depo Provera as a means of birth control. Drew was advised by the medical personnel that DepoProvera was one hundred percent effective in preventing live births. She was further told there was a mere one chance in one thousand that she might become pregnant while on Depo Provera.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Prison or correctional facility may not bring any action under any federal law with respect to prison conditions
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was convicted of drug and firearm offenses. One forfeiture count and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Arguing that his motions to suppress evidence should have been granted. That there was insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions for conspiracy and attempted obstruction of justice. Holding that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence found when the warrant was executed. The government's petition for rehearing en banc was granted and the panel opinion vacated. He absconded after he was placed on work release. Received a report from Crime Stoppers that Tylan Lucas was staying at 2316 Ogden Street apartment 1 in North Omaha. That address was for a unit on the first floor of a house converted into apartments. They had learned that the tenant in apartment 1 was Theresa Scaife. On their arrival a man and woman were heard speaking inside. The police asked whether Lucas was in the apartment. She denied that he was. The officers told her they believed he was inside and wanted to look for him.
|
|
02-1195 -- MONREAL V. POTTER -- 05/17/2004
Engages in a pattern or practice of discrimination against Hispanic management level employees and that its policies have a disparate impact on these employees. If the counseling is unsuccessful. Medina and Figueroa) filed with the USPS individual complaints of race discrimination and retaliation.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
LLP was on brief. We hold that a plaintiff who alleges that local educational officials have flouted her right to a free and appropriate public education may not bring suit for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without first exhausting the administrative process established by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We next conclude that same sex discrimination is actionable under Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (although. The upshot is that we affirm the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' amended complaint.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
These matters are before the court on the petition for rehearing filed on behalf of Garfield and Kane Counties. We have determined to amend the original panel opinion on page 86. A copy of the amended opinion is attached to this order. The petition for panel rehearing is otherwise denied in all respects. Most of the transportation routes of the West were established under its authority. R.S. 2477 rights of way were an integral part of the congressional pro development lands policy. The statute thus had the effect of
|
|
TRANSCOM INC. V. USA
With him on the brief was John M. With him on the brief were Frank W. Of counsel were Stephen J. With him on the brief were Terence P. Transcom points out that several of the Chinese companies from which it obtained tapered roller bearings were not named in the notices of initiation for those three administrative reviews. It was improper for the administrative reviews to result in an increase in the antidumping duty on those companies' products. The state controlled entity China National Machinery and Equipment Import and Export Corporation (CMEC) was the sole Chinese exporter of tapered roller bearings. All tapered roller bearings that were imported from China into the United States were sourced. An
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This civil action was brought in the District Court for the District of New Jersey by a consortium of media groups seeking access to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this case concerns whether the mandatory requirement of issue exhaustion in asylum cases is also jurisdictional. Nor is it enough to permit a panel of our court to reconsider past holdings that exhaustion of some asylum questions. Is jurisdictional. It is a reason. As will be apparent. The 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 question is determinative of the asylum case before us.1 Petitioner Lin Zhong (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A liberal reading of Dotson's pro se appellate brief suggests that he raises the following challenges to the judgment of dismissal: (1) the district court should not have ruled 2 on the dismissal motion without hearing oral argument. (5) the court erred in ruling that Dotson's Bivens claim for money damages and his equitable action for reinstatement were precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Three autistic children (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Fazzini was arrested by the Ohio Highway Patrol for
|
|
MURPHY EXPL PRODN CO V. DOI
McNabb argued the cause for appellant.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The principal issue in this case concerns whether the mandatory requirement of issue exhaustion in asylum cases is also jurisdictional. Nor is it enough to permit a panel of our court to reconsider past holdings that exhau stion of some asylum questions. Is jurisdictional. It is a reason. As will be apparent. The question is determinative of the asylum case before us. 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.1 Lin's removal from the United States was first ordered in 1994. Lin had failed to establish that he had been persecuted or was likely to be persecuted by the Chinese government on account of his political opinion. In cases such as this in which deportation proceedings were initiated prior to April 1. We will use the terms
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. ISSUES ON APPEAL The issue presented is whether the bankruptcy court erred in determining that the appellant is not entitled to allowance of an administrative expense claim as a result of the debtor in possession's postpetition use of trucks in which the appellant holds security interests. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW An order determining that a claim is not entitled to administrative expense priority constitutes a final order. Neither party has timely elected to have this appeal heard by the district court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(b)(6).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for the United States appellants.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for the United States appellants.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was L. With him on the brief were Lois J. Which confers jurisdiction on courts to consider challenges to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The damage was caused by freezing temperatures that occurred in November and December 2000. In which the USDA had denied his request for an administrative appeal on grounds that the request was untimely. The USDA's determination denying them benefits was not unreasonable nor contrary to law. I. BACKGROUND John and Shelby Mahon are owners of a citrus nursery located in Lake County. The trees and 3 plants are grown in small containers and then sold. Their nursery is situated on approximately 126 acres. Paul Mahon is also the owner of a citrus nursery located in Lake County. His nursery is situated on five acres of land. The Mahons' citrus crops were destroyed as a result of freezing temperatures. It is unclear from the record what the familial relationship is between John and Shelby Mahon and Paul Mahon. 4 1 because the State of Florida's records showed that he was
|
|
UNITED STATES V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALA.(6/26/1998, NO. 95-6429)
BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries. In part I. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issued in the form of Administrative Bulletins. Body was employed as a senior auditor by BCBSA in 1984. Was assigned to audit the 1983 cost reports of. Reversed his proposed adjustments. Body contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in January 1989 to report BCBSA's reimbursements to Alabama hospitals of interest costs that he felt were not authorized under Medicare regulations. The OIG concluded that four of the fourteen adjustments were
|
|
UNITED STATES V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALA.(6/26/1998, NO. 95-6429)
BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries. In part I. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issued in the form of Administrative Bulletins. Body was employed as a senior auditor by BCBSA in 1984. Was assigned to audit the 1983 cost reports of. Reversed his proposed adjustments. Body contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in January 1989 to report BCBSA's reimbursements to Alabama hospitals of interest costs that he felt were not authorized under Medicare regulations. The OIG concluded that four of the fourteen adjustments were
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issues The Medicare program is administered by the Health Care Finance Administration (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who are radiation oncology service providers. The United States had suspended the administrative process pending judicial determination in this case of whether the oncology service providers defrauded HCFA and whether they are entitled to reimbursement. The United States alleges that the defendants claimed reimbursement on bills for radiation oncology services that were neither provided nor ordered by the physician and on bills for unnecessary radiation oncology services. That the defendants misrepresented the medical services rendered in order to obtain both higher and double reimbursements for services. 7 Before this action was commenced. Took the position that the administrative process should be suspended until judgment was reached in this action because the administrative forum was neither intended nor sufficient to deal with cases of Medicare fraud. A step that is a condition precedent to the providers' right to challenge HCFA's position through the administrative process. The United States also took this position before the district court (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Including: The Medicare program is administered by the Health Care Finance Administration (the
|
|
FREEMAN CLYDE V. FDIC
|
|
GABRIEL J. MARTINEZ V. U.S.
Argued for defendant appellee. On the brief was David M. Director. Of counsel on the brief were Tara A. Of counsel were Aileen M. DC. Also of counsel was Captain David E. Martinez
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This breach of contract action was brought by a group of thirteen insurance companies1 who provide federal crop insurance. Ruled in the alternative that dismissal was also warranted because the insurers had neither exhausted their administrative remedies nor established any exception to the exhaustion requirement. The FCIC was to
|
|
99-1504 -- YOUSEF V. RENO -- 07/02/2001
Yousef was sentenced to life plus 240 years incarceration at a maximum security institution. Yousef was placed into administrative segregation in an isolated soundproof cell. Because of Mr. Both of which were denied. 1997e(a) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order of the district court declaring unconstitutional 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the
|
|
CRAWFORD V. BABBITT (8/6/1998, NO. 97-8299)
Was sexually harassed by her supervisors and then retaliated against when she complained about it. The decision was silent with regard to compensatory damages.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sitting by designation.
a plaintiff's exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the ADEA. (2) a plaintiff's exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the ADEA. When he was fifty six years old. Or otherwise failed to cooperate to the extent that it was not possible to resolve [his] charge.'
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Through the exercise in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 and we affirm. Which have sculpted spectacular and wild canyonlands out of the Owyhee's volcanic rock formations. Ranching families are an important part of the local community with many family members participating actively in civic life as local elected officials. Water is life. Riparian areas lands adjacent to streams that support a thicker growth of vegetation are crucial to the wildlife and fish of the ORA [Owyhee Resource Area]. When riparian vegetation is overgrazed. In 1981 the BLM identified livestock overgrazing as a significant problem in the Owyhee and concluded that approximately ninety percent of the Owyhee rangeland was in poor or fair ecological condition. The BLM again examined the health of the streams in the Owyhee and found that ninety one percent of the stream miles inventoried were in unsatisfactory condition. B. The BLM's Management Of The Owyhee The BLM is statutorily charged with managing the Owyhee and is required to consider many interests.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Hatch was on the briefs for appellant. With her on the brief were John M. We must define
|
|
CRAWFORD V. BABBITT (8/6/1998, NO. 97-8299)
Was sexually harassed by her supervisors and then retaliated against when she complained about it. The decision was silent with regard to compensatory damages.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief was Colleen J. Reduction in force regulations provide that if an employee is to lose her position via reduction in force. The other employee holds a position that is the same as or
|
|
HATCH DONALD J. V. DC
Hatch was on the briefs for appellant. J. With her on the brief were John M. Ferren. The comparative baseline for determining wheth er appellant's segregation was an ". we hold that due process is required when segregative con finement imposes an ". They also include more restrictive condi tions at other prisons if it is likely both that inmates serving sentences similar to appellant's will actually be transferred to such prisons and that once transferred they will actually face such conditions. We reverse its grant of summary judgment for appellee and remand for further consideration of appellant's due process claim in light of this opinion. I Appellant Donald Hatch is a District of Columbia convict serving multiple sentences for armed robbery. The events giving rise to this suit oc curred while Hatch was an inmate at the Lorton Correctional Complex. Hatch claims that Lorton officials kept him in segregation because bed space was unavailable in the general population. Although Hatch's confinement consisted of two weeks of adjustment segregation and twenty nine weeks of administra tive segregation.
|
|
ROBERT O. MUDGE V. U.S.
With him on the brief were Gregory O Duden. Argued for defendant appellee.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Food and Drug Administration (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ludmilla Zurba sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after she was struck by an automobile driven by an FBI agent. Arguing that Zurba's damages should have been capped at $300. Ludmilla Zurba was standing at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Ohio Street in downtown Chicago. She was struck by an automobile driven by a member of the FBI's Violent Crimes Task Force. The car was propelled into her after colliding with two other automobiles. Zurba was taken to the hospital by an ambulance. Zurba was bedridden for six weeks. Zurba was diagnosed with an obstructed bile duct. Zurba was again away from work for six weeks. She was diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome. That suit was settled for $100. A few days before discovery was set to close. Reasoning that Zurba's psychological damages were newly discovered and/or based on intervening facts. The sole issue on appeal is whether Zurba's damages are capped at the $300. The plaintiff must have first presented the claim to the appropriate federal agency and have been denied compensation.
|
|
ALEXANDER V. HAWK (11/5/1998, NO. 96-3752)
Brought suit against prison officials claiming that their enforcement of new federal legislation restricting prisoners' access to magazines which are sexually explicit or feature nudity violates his First Amendment rights. The Federal Bureau of Prisons' (
|
|
ALEXANDER V. HAWK (11/5/1998, NO. 96-3752)
Brought suit against prison officials claiming that their enforcement of new federal legislation restricting prisoners' access to magazines which are sexually explicit or feature nudity violates his First Amendment rights. The Federal Bureau of Prisons' (
|
|
CONSOLIDATED BEARINGS COMPANY V. U.S.
Argued for defendant appellant. On the brief was David M. Director. Of counsel were John D. Inc. With him on the brief was Cris R. Will &. Line height:200%'>Because no other subsection of 28 U.S.C. § 1581 was or could have been a basis for jurisdiction in this case. Trial court was correct in finding jurisdiction under section 1581(i). In addition. Line height:200%'>Commerce issues antidumping duty orders for imported merchandise that is sold in the United States below its fair value and materially injures or threatens to injure a domestic industry. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673e (2000). Each participating importer of FAG manufactured AFBs received a new specific duty rate. Information concerning Consolidated s imports and the reseller that export
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was not a commercial vehicle subject to such inspections. The validity of such an inspection is premised on the regulatory scheme giving notice to the members of the class of affected individuals that they are subject to such an inspection. Because Herrera did not have this notice. As he was in fact not a member of the class subject to these random inspections. We decline to extend the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule to this case because the Fourth Amendment violation is the result of an officer's mistaken belief that Herrera fell within the ambit of the Kansas regulatory scheme. Also there was a sign on the back. Did not have a Department of Transportation (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Hill is serving an eighty four month sentence with the Federal Bureau of Prisons for distribution of cocaine base and from September 29. Was confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Florence. As required under 28 C.F.R. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The 1983 action in this case is against the named prison officials and not the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who conducted the one year investigation of which he now complains. (2) Mr Hill. Prison officials generally claimed the conditions in administrative detention are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The issue presented on appeal is whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Appellant Ronald Fogle. As Fogle was granted in forma pauperis (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Although we have previously held that the administrative review scheme provided in the Longshore Act supplants district court jurisdiction over claims for benefits. Kreschollek's claim presents a new twist on the question because his challenge to the Longshore Act is a constitutional one and he claims that the review process established by the Act is insufficient to address his injuries. Asserting that Kreschollek was now able to return to work. While the matter was pending before the ALJ. Kreschollek filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey invoking jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and alleging that the review procedure under the Act is unconstitutional because it does not require a predeprivation hearing before employers who voluntarily compensated injured employees may terminate those benefits. Is unconstitutional. Named as defendants were Southern Stevedoring Co. The ALJ's final decision on Kreschollek's administrative claim for benefits and the district court's ruling on the motion to dismiss were handed down within days of each other in March 1995.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The FDIC insures deposits in financial institutions and is authorized by statute to act as receiver for insured institutions that fail and are closed by their chartering authority. 12 U.S.C. 1811. When the FDIC is appointed receiver for a failed institution. The FDIC is authorized to collect all obligations and moneys owed to failed institutions for the benefit of the institution's creditors and shareholders. The FDIC is empowered to avoid fraudulent transfers. Parks was a director of Olympic International Bank and Trust Company (
|
|
LARRY J. BUTLER V. SSA
For respondent. With her on the brief were David M. Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Mark S. To eliminate his administrative and managerial duties as Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge. The Board concluded that it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. Butler v. 2002) ( Final Order ). We affirm. BACKGROUND The position of administrative law judge is created by statute. Under 5 U.S.C. § . [e]ach agency shall appoint as many administrative law judges as are necessary for proceedings required to be conducted in accordance with sections 556 and 557 of this title. On August 14. He was twelve years old at the time and did not know how to read. In the summer before Joshua started second grade. Requested a certified sign language interpreter to assist Joshua in the classroom. Joshua's mother is a special education teacher. The administrative judge found that Joshua's need for a certified sign language interpreter was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Facts Tamms is the highest security prison in Illinois. All Tamms prisoners are exposed to hardships that are not experienced in segregated confine No. 03 3318 3 1 ment at any other maximum security facility in Illinois. The plaintiffs are organized into two categories. Some of whom are also litigation plaintiffs. Are associated with prison gangs (in IDOC terminology. It appears that several have been released from IDOC's custody or no longer are at Tamms. To the extent that the appellants no longer are in custody or are incarcerated at Tamms. Only three counts of which are now before this court. The district court held that the litigation plaintiffs met the threshold requirements of § 1915A because retaliation for exercising one's right to access to the courts is a cognizable constitutional claim. A more detailed rendition of the district court's rationale is set forth in our discussion of each claim on appeal. The gang plaintiffs challenge IDOC's regulations that allow officials to transfer prisoners who are gang 3 At oral argument.
|
|
WATTS V. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. (1/3/2003, NO. 02-13230)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
TRANSCOM, INC., V. US
Argued for plaintiff appellant.
|
|
WATTS V. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. (1/3/2003, NO. 02-13230)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
STAATS V. U.S.P.S.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The School District argues that the meeting for which attorneys' fees were awarded was not
|
|
DRG FNDNG CORP V. SECY HSING URBAN
|
|
NSK LTD. V. U.S.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings to determine whether equitable considerations excuse Rodriguez's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 13059 BACKGROUND Rodriguez was employed as a delivery truck driver by Airborne for seven years. Until he was terminated in 1995. Rodriguez contends that his attendance problems were caused by his severe mental depression that resulted from the death of his infant son and other family difficulties. Although his supervisors at Airborne were well aware that his absences were caused by his depression and the side effects of his anti depressant medications. Was terminated on December 11. Left blank all questions pertaining to 1 FEHA is California's civil rights statute that proscribes employment discrimination on account of age. He was interviewed that same day by DFEH consultant Victor Aguirre. Explaining that it was the cause of his absences. He told Aguirre that his depression was due to the death of his child and separation from his wife.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
P.C. were on brief for appellants. Desmery and Craig and Macauley were on brief for appellee. Jun iper's companion claim for cleanup related attorney fees was disallowed as well. The drums were still at the facility when DEQE conduct ed its last site inspection. Juniper contends that the area was sub merged at the time. The Hemingway Bristol chapter 11 reorganization proceeding was converted to a chapter 7 liquidation proceeding. A chapter 7 trustee was appointed. Were dis covered at the facility. 391 U.S. 471 (1968)).3 2Juniper alleges that an engineering firm was paid $30. An environmental consulting firm was paid $7. A law firm was paid $54. When the trustee's motion for summary judgment on count I was denied the bankruptcy court allowed Juniper to amend count I to assert a claim for contribu tion under 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). On the ground that Juniper was the holder of a contingent CERCLA contribution claim based on a debt owed EPA for which Juniper. Bristol were jointly and severally liable. The bankruptcy court ruled that Hemingway and Bristol were responsible parties
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings to determine whether equitable considerations excuse Rodriguez's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 13059 BACKGROUND Rodriguez was employed as a delivery truck driver by Airborne for seven years. Until he was terminated in 1995. Rodriguez contends that his attendance problems were caused by his severe mental depression that resulted from the death of his infant son and other family difficulties. Although his supervisors at Airborne were well aware that his absences were caused by his depression and the side effects of his anti depressant medications. Was terminated on December 11. Left blank all questions pertaining to 1 FEHA is California's civil rights statute that proscribes employment discrimination on account of age. He was interviewed that same day by DFEH consultant Victor Aguirre. Explaining that it was the cause of his absences. He told Aguirre that his depression was due to the death of his child and separation from his wife.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether a plaintiff who seeks only money damages is required to exhaust administrative remedies before instituting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 predicated on a violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Exhaustion of those remedies is required. Robb was in the fourth grade. The tutoring occurred on the floor of a dim hallway where there was no chair or desk for her to use. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiffs were barred from pursuing a judicial remedy before they exhausted their administrative remedies under the IDEA. The principal purpose of the Act is
|
|
03-9508 -- MCNALLY PITTSBURG MANUFACTURING CO. V. DIRECTOR OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS -- 02/10/2004
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. Plaintiffs are ambulance suppliers based in Georgia. Holding that the mandamus jurisdiction invoked by plaintiffs under 23 U.S.C. § 1361 is both available and appropriate in this case. Certifying a class of ambulance providers.2 The threshold issue we must decide is whether the district court correctly assumed mandamus jurisdiction over this action. R.E. 32 34. 4 2 Mandamus jurisdiction is appropriate3 only where (1) the defendant owes a clear nondiscretionary duty to the plaintiff and (2) the plaintiff has exhausted all other avenues of relief. Plaintiffs cannot invoke the extraordinary remedy of mandamus because they have an alternative
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
These consolidated appeals involve the intersection of an issue that is subject to federal regulation. With an issue that is subject to tribal control. A Tribal Constitution approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1937 provides that the Tribe is to be governed by an elected Tribal Council. Members of the Tribe who were dissatisfied with the conduct of the Elected Council alleged illegal conduct by the Elected Council and circulated petitions to seek a special election to recall the entire council. The Elected Council claims that some of the signatures were forged. The Elected Council does not claim to have conducted an investigation to determine if there were 243 valid signatures. The Elected Council states only that it was satisfied that the irregularities were sufficient not to warrant a recall election. 2 Because the Tribal Constitution grants to the Tribal Council dispute resolution powers and the duty to call a special election. There is no separate Tribal body to which the petitioners may appeal the Elected Council's action other than the Elected Council itself.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief. Covington & Burling were on brief. Were on brief. We treat the appeal as if the appellees were a single entity. 2 No. 88 525. Although the coupons were actually disbursed by the participating states. Because overpayments were charged to the federal tab. The federal government 3 imposed a monetary sanction.2 Such fines were calculated by multiplying the total dollar value of state issued food stamps for the fiscal year times the difference between the state's EER and its TER. The state's EER was below five percent. Massachusetts makes four principal claims: (1) that the quality control provisions on which the sanction rested were no longer in effect when FNS imposed the sanction. (2) that FNS's sampling methodology was so biased as to offend the Food Stamp Act. Massachusetts contends that this legislative legerdemain undermined FNS's authority thereafter to impose sanctions for FY 1982.3 It is a hoary rule of the common law that the repeal of a statute eliminates any inchoate liability for penalties under the repealed statute.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is substituted for her predecessor in office under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). 5943 5944 MCBRIDE COTTON AND CATTLE CORP. v. Or beneficiary who is a delinquent debtor on an agricultural loan administered by the USDA. None of the plaintiffs is a delinquent debtor. We hold that the exhaustion requirement of 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e) is not jurisdictional. We further hold that exhaustion is excused because the plaintiffs' complaint alleges collateral. I Because it is relevant to our discussion of the jurisdictional issue. These contracts are seven year contracts. Plaintiff Running Water Land & Cattle Inc. is a corporation whose president is John Mitchell. Shareholders are members of the Mitchell family. Before Running Water was incorporated. Asserting that it was not timely. Plaintiff Thompson Farm is a Texas general partnership that was formed in 1975. Roger Thompson is a partner. As are two other family members. Are outstanding. There is no record that an administrative appeal was requested. Plaintiff Brandstatt Family Trust (the Trust) was created in January 1995 by J.M.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With whom Gonzalez & Vilella was on brief. Was on brief. 504 (1st Cir. 1996) (explaining that an appellate court is not committed to the trial court's rationale. BACKGROUND The facts essential to our review are largely uncontested. 25 of which were clearance sale items (known colloquially as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ray's notice of appeal was filed pro se. Ray's appeal was handled by John P. Who were at the time of briefing students at Seton Hall Law School under the supervision of Professor Romberg. Prison or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
|
|
02-2337 -- ROSS V. COUNTY OF BERNALILLO -- 04/28/2004
Plaintiff Michael Rene Ross brings Eighth Amendment claims against several defendants alleging that a slippery shower floor was unreasonably dangerous and that he did not receive appropriate medical attention after falling in the shower and injuring his shoulder. Ross fell in the shower at the McKinley County Detention Center (
|
|
OY V. U.S.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We hold that erroneous statements by the Immigration Judge (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Are vendors who filed timely reclamation claims against the Debtor. Appellants now appeal the bankruptcy court's decision finding that their reclamation claims are not entitled to administrative expense priority pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c)(2) and relegating their claims to the status of general unsecured. I. ISSUES ON APPEAL (1) Whether the bankruptcy court erred in denying administrative expense priority or a lien to reclaiming sellers whose goods were proposed to be consumed by the Debtor in its manufacturing activities. (2) Whether the bankruptcy court erred in determining the validity and priority of reclamation claims pursuant to motion rather than adversary complaint. (3) Whether the bankruptcy court erred in determining that the Appellants were not entitled to require a marshaling of the assets to protect their reclamation claims. Neither party has timely elected to have this appeal heard by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(b)(6). The order and judgment on appeal are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
When she was attacked outside her place of employment. That claim was denied by an administrative law judge who determined that the plaintiff could return to her past type of employment. Which was not appealed further by the claimant. Kuhn filed a second application for benefits and was again denied the relief she sought at the administrative level. Who concluded in January 1999 that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Jorge Marrero Narvaez were on brief. Were on brief. The gist of EPA's decision was straightforward: having previously established secondary treatment requirements because PRASA's POTW emitted pollutants into stressed waters. The NPDES permit issued to 1
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court found that Plaintiff Appellee Dennis Paese was entitled to benefits under a long term disability plan provided by his employer. Rather is an affirmative defense. Which was issued by Hartford and governed by ERISA. Could not perform the essential duties of
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
The 15 plaintiffs in these three consolidated cases are prisoners who were convicted by Wisconsin state courts and held. WCF is operated by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). The plaintiffs allege that they were severely beaten and subjected to racial epithets by members of WCF's Special Operations Response Team (SORT) in August of 1998. The grievance procedure is summarized in this section. While the plaintiffs' claims are discussed under the individual subheadings in Part II.C. below. WCF's grievance procedure in effect during August of 1998 was outlined in an inmate handbook dated July 6. Informal resolution of grievances is encouraged. This process is initiated prior to the formal logging of a grievance in which the inmate agrees to allow a staff member to attempt to resolve his complaint. The grievance office is located in the F wing. Grievance forms are available from any unit team member or in the library. The mail box is emptied daily. Nos. 03 5227/5228/5389 forwarded to the grievance chairperson or shift supervisor (whenever the chairperson is not available) for immediate attention.
|
|
MARITIME MANAGEMENT V. UNITED STATES (3/1/2001, NO. 99-14862)
All of which were detailed in the bid request as minimum requirements for the award of the contract. Award of the contract was suspended pending review. 5 U.S.C. § 701
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Police monitoring the bait truck noticed that it was moving. Reporting that he was in the truck and moving it. While Johnson was being booked on theft charges at the police station. They also discovered that he was employed by the Autoplex Drive In Salvage Company (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Willard & Redding was on brief for appellants. Were on joint brief of appellees. Were on joint brief of appellees. Although it appears that the Federal Highway Administration is ultimately responsible for the preparation of the final EIS. All of the defendant agencies were involved in the preparation of the EIS. We will refer to the
|
|
MARITIME MANAGEMENT V. UNITED STATES (3/1/2001, NO. 99-14862)
All of which were detailed in the bid request as minimum requirements for the award of the contract. Award of the contract was suspended pending review. 5 U.S.C. § 701
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
It is the IJ's decision that we review. No mean task here because the IJ's opinion is cursory. We understand the IJ to have concluded that Berishaj's testimony regarding past persecution was not credible. Country conditions in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which embraced Montenegro at the time of the IJ's decision) had changed such that Berishaj could no longer have a well founded fear of future persecution. That Berishaj's CAT claim failed because there was no objective evidence that a return to Montenegro would expose him to torture. The IJ misapplied the law in concluding that changed conditions in Montenegro have obviated any persecution claim that Berishaj might once have had. The burden of showing changed country conditions is on the government. We will therefore grant the petition for review of the decision insofar as it rejected Berishaj's asylum claim. We will deny the petition for review of the IJ's CAT decision. As we will explain in greater detail. In many cases in which country conditions are at issue.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Amerifirst was Less than three weeks later. Insolvent and the Resolution Trust declared Corporation (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Nelson were on brief. Were on brief. Bauser were on brief. The petitioners and petitioner intervenors are public interest groups. Supported by the Attorneys General of five states (who have filed a helpful amicus brief). We have studied the complex statutory and regulatory framework and scrutinized the plenitudinous administrative record. BACKGROUND
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Although the determination that Morgan should be forcibly medicated was reached in the context of an administrative proceeding conducted pursuant to Federal Bureau of Prisons (
|
|
02-1492 -- STEELE V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS -- 12/29/2003
Steele was taken from his cell and placed in the special housing unit at the United States Penitentiary in Florence. Steele's belongings were missing. He asserted that the grievance procedure is generally inaccessible to inmates because the mandatory first step requires cooperation of a staff member. The administrative review by correction officials is intended
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who was diagnosed with incurable melanoma cancer. The complaint was amended two times to correct deficiencies and to allege that the NIH failed to obtain JoAnn Goodman's informed consent. We have jurisdiction and we affirm. Was diagnosed with advanced melanoma in her scalp. The cancer was excised. JoAnn Goodman's prognosis was poor. The study was conceived and directed by the NIH's Dr. The first 17 patients in the study were treated with these agents. At which time the focus of the study was to determine the maximum safe tolerable dose of TNF. That dose was determined to be 1.0 milligrams per kilogram. JoAnn Goodman and her father in law traveled from Washington state to Maryland to discuss with NIH doctors whether JoAnn Goodman was eligible to participate in the ILP study. A copy of the consent form was given to her and it was explained. JoAnn Goodman's treating physician noted in his chart that: [JoAnn Goodman] is not able to work. That it may have only a small chance of helping her. JoAnn Goodman returned to the NIH where she was prepared for her ILP surgery.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The pro se prisoner's claim of ownership was dismissed as untimely. At issue is whether to apply the prison mailbox rule. 1992
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The penalties can be harsh for those who refuse to comply with an administrative cleanup order if they later are determined to be liable for the cleanup and to have resisted the order without sufficient cause. Congress provided procedures by which a party who pays for cleanup pursuant to an order from the EPA but does not believe it is liable may petition the President to recover its response costs from the Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund (Superfund) established by CERCLA. This is the basis for Dico's counterclaim. This is the basis of the EPA's claim. 349 n.1 (8th Cir. 1994). 2 2 This is not the first time this litigation has been before our Court. EPA tests determined that the Des Moines Water Works (DMWW) was contaminated by trichlorethylene (TCE) and other substances designated as hazardous by the EPA. In 1983 this site was placed on the EPA's National Priority List (NPL). Dico's property was included in the site. Our opinion was filed in September 1994. Also moved the EAB to stay the administrative proceedings on the ground that the claim pending before the EAB was the same as Dico's counterclaim filed in federal court.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
By a party aggrieved by a state administrative agency decision is an original civil action or an appeal. We find that such an action is an original civil action governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Lenoir County administrative law judge (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellant. Dunn & Crutcher LLP were on brief for appellee. The Court is LAGUEUX. District Judge. asked to decide whether certain employees of the John Alden Life Insurance Company (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He was not hired for the position. Which was filled by a white male with no prior on the job police experience. We will reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand both claims to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. FACTS The facts underlying the instant dispute have not been developed in detail. Given the early stage at which the matter was resolved in the District Court. Bur gh's complaint is the only pleading in the recor d and no discovery has been taken. Clifford Township is located appr oximately 25 miles from Burgh's home in South Montrose. Burgh alleges that he was more qualified than the person hired and that the department failed to hir e him because of his race. S 955(a).1 The PHRA claim was filed within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. The state administrative complaint was therefor e timely. The federal claim was accepted and docketed by the EEOC on Mar ch 20. This claim was filed within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory employment practice and it too was timely.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Claiming that the plan administrator wrongfully denied benefits to which she was entitled. Because we conclude that the plan administrator could not be found to have abused its contractually conferred discretion in the circumstances of this case. The parties agree that the Plan is governed by ERISA and constitutes an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over all of BP Care's claims and therefore should not have reached the due process issue. Barbara Parke became insolvent and was unable to continue lease payments. It was able to continue operating the nursing home without interruption. The name of this arm of the Department of Health and Human Services changed from Health Care Financing Administration to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services while the CMP proceeding was pending. Ordering that CMS
|
|
JEFFREY J. TIBURZI V. DEPT. OF JUSTICE
For respondent.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the briefs was Sherwin Kaplan. With him on the brief were Jeffrey B. We conclude that the claims against the PBGC must be dismissed because the pilots have not yet exhausted their administrative remedies. Finding that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is the effect of a conversion from Chapter 11 to Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings on the priority status of a postpetition. They stated that they no longer operated their long term care facility and were now employed by others. To reflect additional interest and penalties which had accrued while the estate was still proceeding under Chapter 11. The bankruptcy court agreed and held that a tax claim filed during the pendency of a Chapter 13 petition must be prioritized as if the claim had arisen prepetition because § 1305(b) states that claims for taxes filed under § 1305(a) are allowed or disalUnless otherwise indicated. The bankruptcy court noted that filing a proof of claim under § 1305 is voluntary. Therefore the IRS could have avoided application of § 1305 by not filing a claim after the conversion. The district court found that § 348(d) is the only section that addresses the issue of administrative expenses in a conversion from one Chapter to another and that § 1305 did not apply.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Patrick Burkett. On the brief were Peter D. Plaintiff Appellant Laura Wilson is the personal representative of the estate of her deceased husband. Wilson's estate services that were paid for by Medicare. brought a medical malpractice action against a hospital and two doctors. She contended that the government's claim against her husband's estate was improper and therefore constituted an illegal exaction. Wilson's claim1 arose under the Medicare statutes and because jurisdiction over such a claim is vested exclusively in federal district court. Some background will help the reader to understand the issue in this case. Medicare is a system of federally funded heath insurance for the aged. It is administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. All statutory references are to the 2000 version of the United States Code. 3 For convenience. Medicare paid for medical services without regard to whether they were also covered by an employer group health plan. Which were designed to make Medicare a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Metcalf was responsible for recording and indexing various legal instruments for the county. Which was public and well attended. The parties do not dispute that the Office Manager and Administrative Officer positions are functionally equivalent. The position will be referred to throughout this opinion as the Administrative Officer position. 2 1 No. 03 3946 Garvey v. Montgomery which was responsible for selecting which candidates would receive the state party's endorsement for elected administrative offices decided to endorse Montgomery for Franklin County recorder. Montgomery was appointed as interim recorder. Who was managing operations. Which was equivalent to the position held by Nichter prior to his resignation. Montgomery Montgomery was officially elected recorder of Franklin County in November 2000. Garvey was replaced by Joseph P. Clark was replaced by Jan Lamm. She was not entitled to relief under the First Amendment. Because political affiliation was an appropriate employment consideration for the position from which she was fired.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Were on brief. The facts are uncontroversial. The statute contemplates the issuance of permits for the drilling of water wells and the granting of franchises for the utilization of surface waters.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Abatie was employed by the Santa Barbara Medical Foundation Clinic (
|
|
LACHANCE V. MSPB
|
|
SANDVIK STEEL V. U.S.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I McCoy was convicted of drug conspiracy charges and incarcerated in various federal penal facilities from 1993 to April 16. He was bitten on the right leg by a spider and he sought treatment at the infirmary. McCoy's right leg was amputated in 1995. Again the treatment was unsuccessful. McCoy was transferred to several different medical facilities. He was not advised to quit smoking. Which is the only known effective treatment for Buerger's disease. Buerger's disease is an inflammation of the arteries. It occurs primarily in younger men (ages 2040) who are heavy smokers. There is no known cure. Abstinence from tobacco use is the only known method of arresting the disease. Which will necessitate removal of the limb. Asserting that his claim was time barred since he had filed his administrative claim more than two years after the amputation. That claim was also denied. His suit was dismissed. That dismissal is not the subject of this lawsuit. 3 2 States shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues. . . .
|
|
WALKER COUNTY SCH. DIST. V. BENNETT (2/16/2000, NO. 99-10140)
20 USC § 1400 et seq.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sayward and Loughman were on brief for appellant. Chamberlain and Chamberlain and Connor were on brief for appellees. Kevin was determined a disabled individual entitled to special educational services under the IDEA.2 Several years 1The IDEA formerly was known as the Education of the Handicapped Act. Which is within the Timberlane Regional School District. They soon expressed concerns to his teacher and to Timberlane's special education administration that Kevin was regressing academically. An IEP is a statement of the educational program which must be written for each child and designed to meet each child's unique needs. 20 U.S.C 1401(a) (19). The IEP is developed by a team including a qualified representative of the local educational agency. An IEP is appropriate under [the IDEA] if it provides instruction and support services which are reasonably calculated to confer educational benefits to the student. [The IDEA] further requires states to establish and maintain certain procedures
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Fieber's was initially pleased with Purina's results. The plan's effective date was June 29. As was required for
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. 578 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. The Problem of Stormwater Runoff Stormwater runoff is one of the most significant sources of water pollution in the nation. SediThe
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
PERRINO V. S. BELL TEL. & TEL. CO. (4/20/2000, NO. 98-5189)
Circuit Judge: This appeal concerns whether plaintiffs who bring a federal suit based on claims arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Theodore B. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Donald E. With him on the brief were Jeffrey G. Of counsel on the brief were Ronald L. With him on the brief were Martha B. Because the VEOA is subject to equitable tolling and Kirkendall is entitled to a hearing on his USERRA claim. Was chosen to fill the position. All of which were denied. The board has no authority to decide whether DoL should have waived the 60 day deadline. The board affirmed the AJ's decision that the VEOA claim was precluded for failure to timely file. The board held that Kirkendall's assertion that he was not selected based on his status as a disabled veteran was cognizable. That Kirkendall had offered no proof that his veteran status was a substantial or motivating factor in his nonselection. Review was denied. Cir. 2006) (per curiam order). 05 3077 3 The order granting en banc review asked the parties to brief three issues: (1) Is the 15 day period for filing appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(1)(B) subject to equitable tolling? (2) Is the 60 day period for filing a claim with the Secretary of Labor set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(2)(A) subject to equitable tolling? (3) Are all veterans who allege a USERRA violation entitled to a hearing under 5 U.S.C. § 7701?
|
|
CROSBY V. PAULK (9/10/1999, NO. 97-8585)
Circuit Judge: This interlocutory appeal requires us to determine if local law enforcement officers and a state revenue agent are entitled to qualified immunity for investigating underage drinking and after hours sales of alcohol in nightclubs. The Valdosta/Lowndes/Brooks Drug Task Force (
|
|
WALKER COUNTY SCH. DIST. V. BENNETT (2/16/2000, NO. 99-10140)
20 USC § 1400 et seq.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
L.L.P. were on brief for appellants.
|
|
ROBERT A. BIEBER V. DEPT OF THE ARMY
Argued for respondent.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Was pursuing his own claim for benefits relating to a serviceconnected injury. Included with his submission were two medical statements. Which were dated April 29. Were purportedly written by Dr. Hendrickson was questioned by Kenneth White. White had observed that the two statements did not appear normal because they were both unsigned and were not on a preprinted form. I can have it signed by him. Have him review it once again . . . .
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sought a declaration from the district court that NMMI is bound by the IDEA. It guarantees that such an education is given by instructing states to create an Individualized Education Plan (
|
|
CROSBY V. PAULK (9/10/1999, NO. 97-8585)
Circuit Judge: This interlocutory appeal requires us to determine if local law enforcement officers and a state revenue agent are entitled to qualified immunity for investigating underage drinking and after hours sales of alcohol in nightclubs. The Valdosta/Lowndes/Brooks Drug Task Force (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
When he learned in 1989 he was suffering from a serious. Was still alive and applied for a pension benefit based on 34 years and four months of credit. Tocker was eligible for service credit only for the 22 years and six months from September 1967 until March 1. Plaintiff claimed he had not been told in 1990 that he was being terminated and would therefore be ineligible for pension benefits. The company name was later simplified to Kraft Foods Inc. in 1995. The plan is now administered by Kraft Foods North America. The merger and the name changes are irrelevant to the issues in this case. Tocker is now represented by counsel on this appeal. Giving deference to the administrative committee's finding that Tocker was terminated in March 1990. Where the administrators are given discretion under the terms of a benefit plan. As they are in this case. We refer throughout the opinion to the statute as codified prior to the enactment of the Pension Protection Act. 3 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 a claim is not the applicant's to open.
|
|
PERRINO V. S. BELL TEL. & TEL. CO. (4/20/2000, NO. 98-5189)
Circuit Judge: This appeal concerns whether plaintiffs who bring a federal suit based on claims arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who at all relevant times was a corrections officer at the Moberly Correctional Center (MCC) in Moberly. Charrier was ordered to pay Foulk one dollar in nominal damages plus interest and costs. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notices of appeal were timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background Factual history The following summary of underlying facts is based upon the evidence presented at trial. Foulk was seen by Dr. Foulk was admitted to the infirmary. When he was awoken by corrections officer Shawn Bates. Who told Foulk it was time to eat. Foulk told Bates that he was not hungry and wanted to be left alone. Foulk was again awoken and told to eat. Foulk was again awoken by 3 corrections officers. He was still feeling the effects of the medication and once again fell back asleep. Foulk was not offered medical assistance. He was put into solitary confinement in a cell that had no running water and only dry paper towels to wipe his face.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiff Robert Spruill is an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
|
|
HUAIYIN FOREIGN TRADE CORP V. U.S.
For plaintiffs appellants. With him on the brief was John C. For defendant appellee. On the brief were Robert D. Senior Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief was Arthur D. ) determined that a foreign producer of freshwater crawfish tail meat was subject to a dumping margin applicable to all similar producers from the People's Republic of China (". Alleging that freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC was sold in the United States at less than fair value. Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China. The Department adopted in this proceeding a presumption that the PRC was a nonmarket economy (". Huaiyin 5 indicated that it was applying for a separate company specific margin. See 62 Fed. 348. Huaiyin 5 was among the companies able to show an absence of state control and thus received a company specific 91.5 percent ad valorem duty margin. Id. at 41.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Were on joint brief for appellees United States Army Corps of Engineers and Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. 2 TORRUELLA. Found that the Corps' determinations under Section 404 were not arbitrary. Factual Background This appeal is an offspring of the colossal effort to clean up Boston Harbor. The MWRA was required. Eventually four technologies and ten potential sites were identified from a field of 299 sites. Additional evaluation was conducted to further screen the potential sites for detailed analysis. Such as cost and the extent to which potential communities were already hosting permanent wastewater treatment facilities. Four were further evaluated for sludge processing. While two sites Rowe Quarry and MCI Walpole were further evaluated for a landfill operation. To the east of the landfill site is the head of the Neponset Sole Source Aquifer.6 This sole source aquifer serves several wells that are the only source of drinking water to the residents of the Town of Walpole.7 EPA concluded that the nearest of these wells is located more than two miles from the landfill site and is separated from the landfill by soils of low permeability.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was William J. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Edward N. 2 the entry was deemed liquidated at the rate and amount of duty deposited by the importer. The United States Customs Service was renamed the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. 2308 2309 (2002). 2 Statutory references are to the 2000 version of the United States Code. 1 ruling as to when the period for Customs to liquidate the entry began to run. The towels were subject to an antidumping duty order that required a cash deposit of an antidumping duty computed at the rate of 2.72%. Final liquidation of the March 1994 entry was therefore suspended pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d). The final results of the third administrative review were published on October 30. Informing Customs that suspension of liquidation was lifted and ordering Customs to liquidate entries subject to the administrative review. 04 1259 2 On September 26.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Exhaustion would be futile in the circumstances of this case and therefore is not required. Because we agree that exhaustion is futile when. Damages are the only suitable remedy for the plaintiff's alleged injuries and yet damages are unavailable through the administrative process. I. BACKGROUND David Jason Covington was born on March 8. Was a special education student at the Knoxville Adaptive Education Center (KAEC) from 1990 until he graduated with a special education diploma in May 1996. Jason was locked in a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
LLP were on brief. This case requires us to address what is meant by de novo judicial review under ERISA of a denial of benefits when the ERISA plan does not preserve discretion in the plan administrator. That raises concomitant questions of whether the claimant is entitled to trial in the district court and what. Evidence may be admitted that is not in the administrative record before the ERISA administrative decision maker. Our conclusion is that given the nature of the claimant's challenge here that he did in fact establish his eligibility to benefits before the ERISA decision maker the claimant was not entitled to trial or to admit desired new evidence outside the administrative record or to discovery. This plan is an employee welfare benefit plan as defined by ERISA. In June 1995. There was considerable exchange of medical information between Orndorf and Revere. Revere determined that Orndorf was not disabled due to pain from his back. The administrative record was closed. In February of 2002.
|
|
O'BRIEN V. OPM
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Warner carved plastic parts and was required regularly to lift between five and seventy five pounds. He was not disabled because he retained the ability to perform past relevant work as a retail sales clerk. Could stand or walk up to two hours per day in an eight hour day and that Warner's overall endurance was affected by his chronic pain such that he would need two hours rest per eight hour work day. Sonke concluded that Warner
|
|
KOYO SEIKO V. U.S.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
As a warehouse fork lift operator.1 Morris is disabled due to arthritis. A DLA The version of the facts recounted here is undisputed. Morris was not reassigned. Morris was unable to work or care for himself for roughly two months after the injury. The ALJ found that Morris was a
|
|
DAMIANO V. FDIC
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Damiano v. Amerifirst was declared insolvent and the Resolution Trust Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan97/94-4947.opa.html">DAMIANO V. FDIC<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Damiano v. Amerifirst was declared insolvent and the Resolution Trust Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-3165.html">BOSLEY V. MSPB<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022977p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jesus is Alive.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1130p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine whether Baird was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3361.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Federal courts have recognized the right of prisoners to relief if prison officials deny them basic medical care. The vehicle for such suits is 42 U.S.C. 1983. The vehicle is not so clear. Some courts have treated such actions as Bivens actions. 403 U.S. 388 (1971).(2) Others have assumed that there exists a non statutory basis for injunctive action. The question arises whether the actions are barred by sovereign immunity. Very often the nature of the claim and the basis for rejecting sovereign immunity are not addressed.(4) We believe clarification would be useful. Assert that the action is barred by sovereign immunity. Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (rejecting federal prisoners' First Amendment challenge to a BOP regulation prohibiting electric instruments). <hr> the case is properly denominated an action for relief in the nature of mandamus. That sovereign immunity is not a bar. That his claims against the Bureau of Prisons are not properly before us. I. Background and Facts Plaintiff Appellant Ron Simmat was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced by the State of Connecticut to life imprisonment in 1962.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-1274a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nagin were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Jr. were on the brief for intervenor American Airlines. Were on the brief for intervenor Dade County Flori da. Salinger were on the brief for amicus curiae Airports Council International North America. 1997) [hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/05/031294P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that First Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company was liable to Julie Parke under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. For prejudgment interest during the period in which Parke's benefits were wrongfully delayed. 2) the First Reliance's obligation to pay benefits is not at issue and has not been disputed since early in the litigation. 2002 judgment was entered. Because we have already denied Parke's motion to dismiss the appeal on this ground. We will simply point out that jurisdiction is proper when an appeal is filed within 30 days after a final decision is rendered by the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2003) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3442.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Francesca Alvaro. With her on the brief were Neil A.G. Garcia had not proven that her actions were involuntary and therefore dismissed Ms. I An adverse action is an official action taken by a federal agency and imposed on an employee. Such official action is by statute clearly within the jurisdiction of the Board. An aggrieved employee can appeal such an action to the Board for a determination as to whether the action was proper. 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d) (2000). It deals with what is known as a constructive adverse action. Although a resignation is ostensibly a voluntary separation from employment. It is possible that an employee can be coerced into resigning by actions of the employing agency. Such an involuntary adverse action is known as a constructive adverse action. Garcia alleges that the constructive adverse action was prompted by a violation of her rights to be free from discrimination in the workplace. It is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/97-1274b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nagin were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Jr. were on the brief for intervenor American Airlines. Were on the brief for intervenor Dade County Flori da. Salinger were on the brief for amicus curiae Airports Council International North America. 1997) [hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-4177.opa.html">STAMM V. PAUL<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Stamm v. Such as they have asserted in this case. We reject the Pauls' arguments on both points and affirm the orders of the district court.<p> I.<p> <p> The following facts are undisputed: David Paul chaired the board of directors of CenTrust Bank when it failed in 1990. This appeal followed.<p> The district court's conclusions of law and findings of fact underlying its order of final judgment for the RTC on the foreclosure claim are subject to <i>de novo</i> and clear error review. A principal may be charged with the unauthorized acts of an independent contractor only if she
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3337.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Monarch was required by the bankruptcy court. Monarch belatedly realized that this was a perfect opportunity to assert claims that both its pre petition and post petition expenses were actually secured by a common law bailee's or warehouseman's lien on the jet fuel. The amount in dispute at the present juncture is Monarch's claim for post petition expenses of $36. That Monarch was not entitled to a lien on the jet fuel in the first place. I. The facts in this case are essentially undisputed. Monarch's responsibilities No. 03 3337 3 were twofold: supplying fueling services for Midway's aircraft at Midway airport (which included refueling and defueling the aircraft and transporting the fuel from Midway's tanks to its aircraft in Monarch's own tanker trucks). It also provided that the fuel tank facilities in which Midway's fuel was stored were owned by the City of Chicago and leased to (and controlled by) Midway. Monarch was owed approximately an additional $37. The disputed proceeds were placed in escrow pending determination of the validity of Monarch's claimed lien.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/98-08727.man.html">BROWN V. SIKES (5/25/2000, NO. 98-08727)<BR></A><BR>
Who was then Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections. Which was enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3103.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Griffin that he was not meeting the attendance requirements of his position. Griffin was formally disciplined by the Postal Service on three different occasions for various attendance problems. At the time the removal letter was sent. The letter did not reference the procedural protections codified in 5 U.S.C. § 7513(b) to which preference eligible employees are entitled (i.e. Griffin was terminated from the Postal Service effective April 2. He sought to have 11 witnesses testify at his hearing. Griffin planned to elicit from those five witnesses was irrelevant to Mr. Was based on hearsay. Griffin has not explained why the testimony of those witnesses was necessary or why the administrative judge's grounds for refusing those witnesses were erroneous. That observation does not suggest let alone prove that there was any improper contact between the administrative judge and agency counsel during the conference. 3. Griffin also argues that the administrative judge did not provide him with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF45595CAB0FA9BF88256A32005AD97C/$file/9935085.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jay Webster (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0E65B93FADA9B1B388256D160073EA72/$file/0156266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Appellants are seven
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200305/01-5307a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3230.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Office of the United States Secret Service when he was hospitalized in 1999. While Patrick was at the hospital he was administered a drug test that erroneously indicated a positive result for drug use. Thomas Cruise alleges that Shawn Schaefer who worked at the hospital where Patrick Cruise was treated improperly disclosed the test result to her husband. Patrick Cruise was later terminated from the Secret Service on other grounds and filed a lawsuit in 2001 stemming from his hospitalization.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6256.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Baughman submitted various requests to staff concerning the dental care he was receiving. Who will respond within fifteen days of receipt of the grievance. The facility head will conduct a final review of the health services administrator's grievance response. He will sign and date the response form. The reviewing authority will have the inmate sign and date the response to acknowledge receipt. Other paperwork will be returned to the inmate with a copy retained by the reviewing authority. If there is no response within thirty days of submission. If more time is required to respond. The inmate will receive written notice. The grievance will be decided within ten working days. This ruling is final. Stated that the first grievance was responded to. May not have been returned to Mr. Since the original was still in prison files. Although the first grievance was denied on October 8. It too was denied.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-4177.opa.html">STAMM V. PAUL<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Stamm v. Such as they have asserted in this case. We reject the Pauls' arguments on both points and affirm the orders of the district court.<p> I.<p> <p> The following facts are undisputed: David Paul chaired the board of directors of CenTrust Bank when it failed in 1990. This appeal followed.<p> The district court's conclusions of law and findings of fact underlying its order of final judgment for the RTC on the foreclosure claim are subject to <i>de novo</i> and clear error review. A principal may be charged with the unauthorized acts of an independent contractor only if she
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1288.html">SHINYEI CORPORATION OF AMERICA V. US<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendent appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Peter D. New York.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was. The court s ruling that after liquidation it could no longer grant relief was in error.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Accordingly. Were the subjects of several Commerce antidumping investigations.<span style='mso spacerun:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/96-7027a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Interim Corporation Counsel at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Spitzer were on the brief. District of Columbia were argued on the same day and before the same panel because they raise similar issues. Or on the alternative grounds that Brown should have brought this action as a habeas corpus petition or that Brown has received all the process that was due him. Is an official of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. He is not named as a defendant in Brown's second amended complaint. Which is the complaint that is at issue in this appeal. He was. The defendants named in the present complaint include the District of Columbia and a number of other D.C. prison officials. court to decide the narrow factual issues relating to whether Brown received all the process he was due. A copy of this report was given to Brown. Brown was notified that a hearing of the Adjustment Board (Lorton's disciplinary body) would occur on October 16 on the charge of Threatening Conduct and on a charge of Possession of Major Contraband (the weapon).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011364.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
MM and her parents have cross appealed. The contentions raised by MM and her parents are without merit. It is necessary first to review some essential legal principles under which they arise. We will then spell out the factual underpinnings of this dispute. A. The IDEA was enacted in 1990 to ensure that all children with disabilities receive a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E1839CBC4CB3521588256AD1005BB5F3/$file/9855853.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Regula contends that the Delta Plan should have accorded deference to the opinions of his treating physicians and considered vocational evidence in making its benefits determination. We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for a determination as to whether the Delta Plan may have been acting under a conflict of interest. Thus whether the court should have applied a less deferential standard of review to the Plan's decision to discontinue Regula's benefits. I. The Delta Plan is a non contributory employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0177p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Her employer's plan is subject to the provisions of the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA). To deny long term disability benefits to Cooper was arbitrary and capricious. She was covered by both short term and long term disability insurance plans administered by LINA. Only the long term disability plan (the Plan) is presently at issue. The Plan defines the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5092C5F12159A34188256E5A00707CDA/$file/9855853.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Regula contends that the Delta Plan should have accorded deference to the opinions of his treating physicians and considered vocational evidence in making its benefits determination. We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for a determination as to whether the Delta Plan may have been acting under a conflict of interest. Thus whether the court should have applied a less deferential standard of review to the Plan's decision to discontinue Regula's benefits. I. The Delta Plan is a non contributory employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/98-08727.man.html">BROWN V. SIKES (5/25/2000, NO. 98-08727)<BR></A><BR>
Who was then Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections. Which was enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-6168.htm">01-6168 -- SCHWOB V. STANDARD INSURANCE CO. -- 06/12/2002<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Valerie S. Standard was both the administrator and insurer of the plan. Plaintiff was an eligible employee under the plan. <p> In December 1997. Alleging that she was disabled as a result of neurological problems caused by Lyme disease and a co infection with babesiosis. Plaintiff was entitled to long term disability benefits
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F06127462DA320F888256E5A00707AF4/$file/9935085.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jay Webster (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1437.html">D & L SUPPLY CO. V. U.S<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/024344p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That case was administratively closed by order of the District Court on August 19. The civil RICO case was not concluded. Levine was never a named party to the action. The action was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. All counts of the complaint were dismissed except for the civil RICO claim against the Litman Group. The case was also joined with a related qui tam action under the False Claims Act. Esq. was lead counsel for the Litman Group in both actions. Esq. was lead counsel for the private plaintiff in the False Claims Act case. While the RICO case was pending trial. Was appointed as Trustee for Penn W est in its case. Potter informed the District Court that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0074p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Superior Bank argued that its mortgage was equitably subrogated to a prior recorded mortgage. After the appeal was filed in this Court. Empire National Bank's mortgage was recorded on December 17. Less than a month after the mortgage was recorded. Which was subsequently withdrawn on October 27. Superior Bank was placed in receivership pursuant to the provisions of FIRREA.1 On November 15. The bankruptcy court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the trustee and avoided Superior Bank's mortgage.2 After that judgment was affirmed by the district court on appeal. Nearly two years after the FDIC was appointed as receiver. The bankruptcy court concluded that it could not rule on Superior Bank's jurisdictional challenge because it was. A collateral attack on the judgment that was pending on appeal before this Court. 2001 order was entered by the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and is entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0152p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is to say damages stemming from sales between Caradon and Eagle Picher after Eagle Picher petitioned for bankruptcy relief in 1991. The bankruptcy court granted the stay motion on the independent ground that Caradon did not have a cognizable claim to bring in the Northern District of Georgia. Common law contribution and common law indemnification were not part of [the] day to day interaction
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2254.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Nora Vargas Acosta and Vargas & Ram rez Law Office were on brief for appellant. Durand were on brief for appellees. No resolution of the motion for reconsideration was issued. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the grounds that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Was a practicing licensed securities broker and licensed supervisor of other securities brokers. OCFI's investigation eventually included the plaintiff himself. 1 The facts recited herein are either not in dispute or are alleged by the plaintiff. 2 On January 27. That the plaintiff was to cease all supervisory and administrative functions at FCC for one year. The plaintiff was afforded an administrative hearing on the issue of the revocation of his license. There is no evidence that the plaintiff raised any search and seizure claims. This step was a procedural prerequisite to seeking judicial review. This is so because all or some of the charges made to the Defendant are of a penal character that entail fines.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/005049.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appeals an order granting summary judgment to Prudential Insurance Company on her claim that Stanley Harrow and a putative class of plaintiffs were wrongfully denied insurance coverage for Viagra. We will affirm. 2 I. Stanley Harrow was insured under the Prudential HealthCare HMO Plan through his wife. Harrow was prescribed Viagra. She was informed by an unidentified person that the plan did not cover Viagra because it was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B39C1A58D9740A92882572BF007B6279/$file/0435897.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
So long as the position of the United States was not substantially justified. 26 U.S.C. § 7430. The taxpayers and the United States agree that the summonses were not enforce PACIFIC FISHERIES INC. v. The government's only action during the litigation was to promptly withdraw the summonses. The question is whether the government's prelitigation conduct should be factored into a determination of whether its position in the judicial proceeding
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzNjQtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6364-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we find that special circumstances justified Brownell's failure to exhaust and that administrative remedies are no longer available to him. Brownell was incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-3286.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Martha B. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Shawn S. Their separate appeals were consolidated before this court because there is a common issue among them. Because Tunik's case is moot. I. BACKGROUND Tunik was an Administrative Law Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9173F7BA0C5DEF948825731D0057A07A/$file/0556006.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND1 Shane Kutasi is an autistic boy who was 11 years old when the disputes at issue here arose. Were unable to reach agreement on a modified IEP for Shane for the succeeding school years. LAS VIRGENES USD Shane was scheduled to attend the A.E. Was denied access to the school after three days by Principal Steven Rosensweig. Who claimed that Shane was not properly enrolled. Requiring that the Kutasis sign Shane in and out from school everyday when no other student was required to do so. LAS VIRGENES USD (12) refusing to allow the Kutasis to volunteer for several field trips that were taken at Round Meadow. (13) requiring that Barbara Kutasi obtain a TB test and a medical release in order to be a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/11/001959P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 1 reimbursement for charges covering in home physical therapy services in excess of the cost limits created by the Secretary on the grounds that the cost limits were outdated and thus contrary to the Secretary's regulations. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(f)(1). Jurisdiction on appeal is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. 42 C.F.R. § 413.20(b).3 A provider is entitled to recover the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034059np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He asserts that he is a United States national and accordingly is not subject to the immigration laws. Also before us is Asemani's habeas petition which the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania transferred to this Court on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Asemani asserts that the petition should not have been transferred because the District Court has jurisdiction to determine citizenship in the first instance. Vacated the Immigration Judge's termination of proceedings and remanded the case for removal proceedings after finding that Asemani was not a United States national. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to consider the order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing Asemani's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and will affirm. We do not have jurisdiction to consider the habeas petition transferred from the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania because Asemani failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and is not appealing a final order of removal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4316.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have been audited by the Internal Revenue Service virtually. Every year since Richard Nixon was President. Kanter was a wellknown and accomplished tax and estate lawyer. Among Kanter's clients was the Pritzker family of Hyatt Corporation fame. Kanter was also an accomplished businessman. Was an expert on the subject of trusts and estate planning. His estate was subsequently substituted as the principal party to this litigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/012018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Former employees of Hechinger Investment Company and related entities (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTMzNDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3348-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Leavitt is automatically substituted for his predecessor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to We affirm the judgment of the district 2 BACKGROUND Joseph. [DA 607] The primary role of CSOs is to maintain the safety of the nation's supplies of food. The FDA received an anonymous telephone call alleging that Joseph had been using cocaine for the last three years and that he was using a government vehicle to purchase the drug. Police were called to Joseph's residence. 239 40] Both of the arresting officers believed that Joseph was under the influence of some substance other than alcohol. 239 40] [DA 237 38. That he was a habitual user of the drug. Was identified as the March 14 caller. [DA 244] Douglas gave the FDA her name and said she was Joseph's live in girlfriend. Asserting that the attack was a result of her having reported Joseph to the FDA. [DA 244] Joseph was arraigned on felony assault charges on March 22. [DA 168] 4 Joseph was placed on administrative leave. Said that her head injuries could also have been self inflicted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988727.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was then Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections. Which was enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991684.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was not timely filed. Was timely filed and. The election results were certified on January 30. Those results were posted for the general membership of the Union during the first week of February 1998. The only election at issue before this court is the Union's election for president. 2 Under section 6(1) of the Union's constitution. The Union argued that Holiday's administrative complaint was not timely filed with the Secretary. The Secretary is authorized to initiate lawsuits 3 See ante at 2 n.1. 4 in federal district court challenging union elections that violate the terms of the LMRDA. Courts have recognized that § 482(a) establishes two procedural requirements that must be met before the Secretary may file a complaint in federal district court challenging a union election. The union member must have either (1) fully exhausted all remedies available under the union's constitution and bylaws. The district court held that Holiday's administrative complaint was not timely filed with the Secretary and. That § 482(a)(1) was inapplicable because Holiday had not exhausted her administrative remedies.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015936.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2 the EPA created a scheme in which the Environmental Appeals Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0157p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The administrative law judge found that she was not disabled within the parameters of the Social Security Act. I. Longworth was born January 20. Was fifty one years old at the time she applied for benefits and fifty two at the time of her hearing before the administrative law judge. Her application was denied both initially and on reconsideration. That medication has adequately controlled all of these claimed ailments and she appears to have abandoned any claim for disability based on them. Her claim for disability benefits is now based on two alleged impairments: (1) shoulder pain and (2) mental impairments. She asserts that the administrative law judge's conclusion that she is not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence. This finding was based on reports from Drs. A referral was ultimately made and Dr. Holloway's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-9528.htm">97-9528 -- WALKER STONE CO. INC. V. SECRETARY OF LABOR -- 09/22/1998<BR></A><BR>
816(a)(1) and holds that breaking up rocks which are obstructing a crusher constitutes
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0745p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The threshold issue presented by this appeal is whether an administrative agency. The issue is a legal one over which our review is plenary. Sun Buick operated the Saab dealership out of the same location that it was operating the Buick dealership it owned. The agreement was contingent on Melnick securing a dealership from Saab and he began to complete the necessary paperwork. Noting that allowing a relocation at that time would create instability as the dealership would presumably be moving again once it was sold. Saab rejected Melnick as a dealer on the ground that he did not have the staff or facilities to begin operation of a dealership. No Saab operations were conducted at the approved facility. (3) Sun Buick's interest in the approved facility was terminated in breach of its obligation to maintain the facility. The termination was effective immediately although Saab acknowledged that Pennsylvania law requires that a manufacturer give a dealer 60 days notice before termination except in a situation where
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96311E1BD528E6CC88256DA2005952F9/$file/0070014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are vacated. They are replaced by the Opinion and Dissent filed today. The petitions for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The clerk is instructed not to accept for filing any new petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc in this case. 13774 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. EPA preserved The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1044.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Gregory S. Of counsel was Meredith A. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Ada E. With him on the brief was Stephen A. Of counsel was Joseph W. A. Countervailing Duties and Subsidies If the production of goods abroad is subsidized by a foreign government. The goal of these duties is to protect American 1 Specifically. A particular batch of imported goods is referred to as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-5009.htm">98-5009 -- MOBIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCING U.S., INC. V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR -- 06/16/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Occidental Oil &. 1291. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1577p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ARE ALL SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Circuit Judge: Jerome Griffin alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by the defendant prison officials when he was held in administrative custody for fifteen months. We will affirm the judgment of the district court. A female prison guard at State Correctional Institute (SCI) Graterford was beaten and raped by a male prisoner. Griffin was suspected of committing the rape and was placed in administrative custody without a hearing pending an investigation of the incident. He was given written notice of the reason for his transfer to administrative custody. The notice stated that he was under investigation for a violation of prison rules and regulations. That there was a need for increased control pending disposition of the charge. 1. Griffin was transferred to prisons at Frackville and Camp Hill. Was found guilty of violating prison rules and was sentenced to 30 days' disciplinary segregation in the Special Holding Unit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1192.html">U.S. V. HANOVER INSURANCE<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1753.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gray LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. Or reasonably should have known. That the tests were not reasonable and necessary for diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury of Medicare beneficiaries. Are the exclusive avenue for recovery by the United States of Medicare overpayments. The question presented is whether the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the Medicare Act explicitly or implicitly repeals the grant of federal court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 or displaces the underlying common law causes of action over which § 1345 gives federal courts jurisdiction. Medicare is a federally subsidized health insurance program for the elderly and certain disabled individuals. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/96-8299.man.html">PARAMORE V. DELTA AIR LINES, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Paramore v. The district court determined that the Administrative Committee's decision to deny long term disability benefits was neither arbitrary nor capricious and granted summary judgment in favor of Delta. We conclude that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-1429.htm">96-1429 -- GARRETT V. HAWK -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR>
1291 and reverse. <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> While he was imprisoned in the United States Penitentiary. He also alleged that he suffered a total shoulder separation as a result and was denied treatment for two months. 1983 (1994) in states with certified administrative remedies were governed by the exhaustion requirements of the former 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3134CA4F4CCC56E888256D6F0007100F/$file/0136023.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Her name is substituted as appellee in this suit. **Honorable Donald P. Circuit Judge: This is a Social Security case. That application was denied both upon initial review and upon reconsideration and is not subject to review here. Bunnell was not disabled and was not entitled to disability insurance because she could perform her past relevant work as a mail sorter. The administrative law judge was the same judge who decided the first case. Bunnell was not disabled because she was able to perform her past relevant work as a mail sorter. This was the final administrative decision. We hold there was no abuse of discretion and affirm the district court's remand for additional proceedings. She claims that Engelman should have recused himself from the second hearing. [1] The suit brought by Mr. Lowry against the Commissioner and the administrative law judges was decided May 16. Bunnell asserts that Administrative Law Judge Engelman should not have heard the suit on remand under the theory of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3326.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
SHAKERPROOF INDUSTRIAL V. U. S.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Concluding that many of the DCFS employees were entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. Was not a state actor. They have reasonable cause to believe that a child may be abused or neglected. If the person who is alleged to have caused the abuse or neglect is employed or otherwise engaged in an activity resulting in frequent contact with children and the alleged abuse or neglect are in the course of such employment or activity. Once DCFS informs a licensed child care facility that one of its employees is the subject of a DCFS formal investigation. State law mandates that the employer
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
No. 01 CV 410 P) Will K. Gaither was suspended from employment because his employer determined that his medical condition—his use of narcotic painkillers—made him unable to perform his job. Was under no obligation to find out. He was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. Gaither was once again taking prescription painkillers. Continuing until he was terminated for unauthorized personal use of a company credit card on September 2nd of that year. Denied him benefits on the ground that there was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The novel issue for this Court is whether we may review a decision of the RRB refusing to reopen a prior claim for benefits after the time for administrative appeal has expired. Because a decision of the RRB refusing to reopen a prior claim is not a final decision within the meaning of 45 U.S.C. § 355(f). We conclude that we have no jurisdiction to review the RRB's decision. We will dismiss the petition. Cunningham was also awarded sickness insurance benefits for the period November 19. Was denied sickness insurance benefits for the period prior to November 19. Both of which were denied on March 7. The Speakman letterare not properly before this Court. We note that the letters are part of the Certified Administrative Record filed with this Court on August 1. Which was treated as a request to reopen her claim in view of the Bureau's October 2. Cunningham argued that good cause existed to waive the 60 day appeal period because she was prevented from timely appealing the Bureau's decision within the prescribed period because of her medical condition.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were Stephen J. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Ada L. With him on the brief were R Alan Luberda and David A. Whereas it should have declared the country of origin to be Germany. Arcelor represented that the SSPC that it had imported during the fourth period of review was from Germany. Commerce determined that Arcelor's entries during that fourth period of review were not subject to the antidumping duty order on SSPC from Belgium. The question for purposes of country of origin is whether the process at issue constitutes substantial transformation. The country of origin of [Arcelor's] merchandise which is hot rolled in Germany. Is Germany. Even if those entries were in fact hot rolled in Germany and not further coldrolled in Belgium. Was granted. The court stated that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
|
|
PARAMORE V. DELTA AIR LINES, INC.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Paramore v. The district court determined that the Administrative Committee's decision to deny long term disability benefits was neither arbitrary nor capricious and granted summary judgment in favor of Delta. We conclude that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5004.html">CITY OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1998/98a2010p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
S 1400 et seq. (1994 & Supp. 1997) (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054702np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. I. Because we are writing for the sole benefit of parties who are familiar with the record and prior proceedings. We will briefly summarize the pertinent facts and will limit our discussion to our ratio decidendi. These claims were denied both initially and on reconsideration. Which was held in June of 1997. The 2 administrative law judge determined that Wisniewski was not disabled. This determination was again affirmed by the appeals council. The Commissioner decides whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. The Commissioner decides whether the impairment is severe. Medical evidence of the claimant's impairment is compared to a list of impairments (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/40249B6CEBAE5D48882570DC00768BF5/$file/0415750.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that participating in an internal affairs investigation is not sufficient to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA. Panaro was incarcerated as a pre trial detainee at the North Las Vegas Detention Center. Accompanied a prison trustee who was distributing fresh linens to the prisoners. Who was in his cell at the time. Stating that they were out of towels. Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3709.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His appeal was referred to the prison's Administrative Review Board. It was no 2 No. 01 3709 longer necessary to participate in the grievance process. Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. Decisions such as Pozo and Strong imply a corollary that is established in collateral attack jurisprudence: A procedural default in state proceedings is fatal to the litigation in federal court only if the state tribunal explicitly relies on that default. Then the federal court infers that the parties must have done whatever the tribunal deemed necessary to permit a reliable decision on the merits. Neither a court nor an agency is required to dismiss a proceeding when the complainant fails to testify. It is fully reviewable later (here by an independent suit under §1983). Is timing. Requirements of this kind are common: no suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act until the agency has had time to rule on a claim for damages. No suit under the employment discrimination laws until the parties have had time for administrative conciliation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A421EB3E94DFECD888256D730070AB34/$file/9936243.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The VISD argues that the temporary placement was appropriate until the VISD had the opportunity to assess and evaluate more fully G's needs and abilities. Holding that the VISD's proposed temporary IEP met the substantive requirements of the IDEA because it was the closest approximation to G's last educational placement. That any deficiencies in VISD's procedural compliance with the IDEA were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/98-5222.htm">98-5222 -- OXY U.S. INC. V. MOBIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCING U.S. INC. -- 10/23/2000<BR></A><BR>
Shell and OXY asserted that the orders were barred by the six year statute of limitation set forth in 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3207.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Penney Guzman was employed as a legal assistant (senior case technician) with the agency's Office of Hearings and Appeals. Penney Guzman was disciplined on three occasions prior to her removal from service. She was suspended for three days for rude and discourteous conduct toward coworkers. She was suspended for five days for rude and discourteous conduct toward a coworker and failure to follow the rules for requesting leave. She was suspended for thirty days for failure to follow instructions. The administrative judge also held that there was a nexus 2006 3207 2 between Ms. Penney Guzman's misconduct and the efficiency of the service and concluded that the penalty of removal was reasonable. Penney Guzman's prior thirty day suspension in determining that the penalty of removal was within the tolerable limits of reasonableness. 2006 3207 3 With regard to the incident leading to her termination. Penney Guzman raises several issues with respect to the administrative judge's factual determination that she was rude and discourteous toward her supervisor.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1860.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Was on brief. The sole issue to be decided in this appeal concerns the limitations period that applies to such actions.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2054.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. As an administrative expense to an executive who was terminated after rendering postpetition services. To join Filene's at a time when it was already experiencing financial difficulty.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2126.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and reverse and remand for further proceedings. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. As was necessary to obtain a building permit. The site was allegedly zoned for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/012358p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is the Newark School District's proposed individual education plan for I.H. for the 1999 2000 school year. Central to this case is the appropriate standard of review a District Court should employ when reviewing state administrative proceedings under the Individuals with Disabilities Act. We hold that the appropriate standard is modified de novo review. We will reverse. It is useful to review the statutory framework before proceeding to the facts. Federal funding of state special education programs is contingent on the states providing a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1908.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. They argue that OSHA did not have a final regulation requiring employers to maintain the information sought in the DCI Surveys. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200610/06-5010a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Kristine H. With him on the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief were Wendy M. Pikofsky. 2 Marvin Beshore was on the brief for appellee Dairy Farmers of America. We need not reach the question whether Edaleen is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief because Edaleen has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies as required by the AMAA. I. Milk markets in the United States are governed by a complex system of price controls that dates back to the Depression era. The money that handlers pay into the producer settlement fund is then redistributed to milk producers at a uniform
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992533.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 1 counsel's firm name is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-3254.htm">00-3254 -- WOODARD V. JEFFERSON COUNTY -- 08/31/2001<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Dave Woodard. Jurisdiction in federal court is based on diversity of the parties. <em>See</em> 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/973057.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation when this case originally was argued April 5. The issue before the en banc court in this case is whether the appellant Reginald D. McGlory was arrested. Incident to his arrest various of his property was seized and most of the seized property. Was subjected to administrative or judicial forfeiture by the DEA. Before we can consider the adequacy of the particular administrative forfeiture notices that are the subject of this appeal. Also before the en banc court are consolidated appeals in United States v. They raise distinct legal issues and will be addressed hereafter in a separate opinion. 2 adequate notice of administrative forfeiture proceedings is provided to a prisoner who is in local detention facilities by mailing the notices to an office of the United States Marshals Service. Federal pretrial detainees are often housed in state detention facilities. McGlory was indicted by a federal grand jury on October 4. He was charged with possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/91AD6AB15C0D81A788256C4B007B715F/$file/0135430.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Appellant/CrossAppellee State of Alaska argues that the plaintiff villages were not entitled to recover fees on the issue of which government federal or state could assert jurisdiction to manage subsistence fishing. Arguing that they were entitled not only to the fees awarded. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court's determination that the villages were prevailing parties entitled to attorneys' fees. We reverse its determination that it did not have discretion to award attorneys' fees for pre litigation administrative activities. Provides in part: The [Interior] Secretary shall not implement [provisions establishing a federal administrative structure] if the State enacts and implements laws of general applicability which are consistent with. The Interior Secretary determined that navigable waters were not public lands for ANILCA purposes. The group's request was denied. While Katie John was pending in federal district court. Although several other cases were filed that turned on the resolution of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1016.html">FUJI PHOTO FILM, CO., LTD., V. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Matthew W. <span class=SpellE>Siegal</span></u>. Argued for <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Lyn M. <span class=SpellE>Schlitt</span></u>. Font family:Arial'><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>This is one of two related appeals from a decision of the International Trade Commission in a case involving single use or disposable 35 mm film cameras. Filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that various respondents were violating section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended. Font family:Arial'>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Commission also issued cease and desist orders to 20 domestic respondents who were found to have significant amounts of infringing inventory in this country.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On appeal. Many of which were not respondents in the earlier proceeding.<span styl
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1017.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The parties were subject to a collective bargaining agreement requiring the musicians to remain available for rehearsals and performances on a flexible basis. Regardless of whether their services were used by the Orchestra during that time. It continued to plan for concerts because it was actively seeking to reorganize its business. Although the concert schedule was uncertain during the post petition period. The Orchestra was unable to resolve its financial difficulties. I. Background The Colorado Springs Symphony Orchestra was a private. The collective bargaining agreement between the parties was set to run through August 31. The agreement was akin to a minimum quantity contract in that the musicians were guaranteed compensation for a certain number of pay periods. The amendment does not affect cases such as this one that were filed prior to April 20. The musicians were never called upon to play. The Association argues that the musicians' wage claims are given payment primacy by Congress under another provision of the Bankruptcy Code.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1407.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(1) we have wended our way through the procedural maze presented by the arguments. As will be evident. We will discuss the myriad arguments presented. Even if his filing deadline is equitably tolled to accommodate his error (it appears to have been a good faith error). We conclude dismissal was warranted but. Douglas was promoted to a GS 13. His position was transferred to the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Douglas is a member of the National Federation of Federal Employees and (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. We have jurisdiction over this appeal because the dismissal disposed of the entire case. 1275 (10th Cir. 2001) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3293.html">JACLYNNE M. O'NEILL V. HUD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <u>Mark D. With him on the brief were <u>David . Because it is supported by other charges against Ms. Neill that the Board upheld and because those charges are sufficient under the circumstances to justify the penalty of removal.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3270.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Because the Board's decision was not arbitrary. Further was supported by substantial evidence. The stated reasons were (1) unacceptable conduct and (2) deliberate refusal to comply with supervisory instructions. Tomei filed an individual right of action appeal alleging that the termination was in retaliation for disclosures protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Administrative Judge found that Tomei was a covered employee for the purposes of appeal. The Administrative Judge explained that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTE0NzgtYmtfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-1478-bk_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whose employment was terminated without cause by debtorappellee Bethlehem Steel Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3062.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Shawn S. Price is not in the interest of justice. Price was convicted. This court's review of a Board's final decision is limited. A Board decision may not be set aside unless it is: (1) arbitrary or capricious. May require payment by the agency involved of reasonable attorney fees incurred by an employee . . . if the employee . . . is the prevailing party and the Board. [or] administrative law judge . . . determines that payment by the agency is warranted in the interest of justice. Including any case in which a prohibited personnel practice was engaged in by the agency or in any case in which the agency's action was clearly without merit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1222.html">ALLOC, INC., BERRY FINANCE N.V V. ITC<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David I. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Lyn M. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>David I. All other intervenors.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Eugene M. Of counsel was <u>Cecilia H. DC.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Also on the brief were <u>Edward V. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>David L. Etc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Also on the brief were <u>Douglas V. For intervenor Roysol.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Also on the brief were <u>Ward B. Maryland for intervenor Akzenta Paneele + Profile GmbH.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Edward H. Claim 1 of the 410 patent are representative of the asserted claims from each patent and state (emphases added)<a style='mso footnote id:ftn2' href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1086.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Angelone</U> was on brief. Namely her Count II claim that the defendants' retaliation infringed on her First Amendment rights and her Count III claim that she was denied equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment because other parents could access their children's records and teachers. The district court ruled that Weber's Count IV claim was barred because of her failure to exhaust administrative remedies specified by IDEA. IDEA requires such exhaustion prior to bringing a civil action pursuant to other federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities if the relief sought is available under subchapter II of IDEA. Such relief is sought through the administrative due process hearing provided in subchapter II of IDEA. <U>See</U> 20 U.S.C. § . Identified as a disabled child in need of special education services under IDEA.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/03/943780P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Co Executor* of the Estate and Last Will and Testament of Frank S. Co Executor of the Estate and Last Will and Testament of Frank S. Co Executor of the Estate and Last Will and Testament of Frank S. Because prior administrative review of claims against the FDIC is a prerequisite to judicial review of such claims. Tri State mailed notice to Merchants that it was revoking the refinancing agreement due to Merchants' breach of the agreement. The FDIC was appointed receiver.2 In December. Because Tri State is a debtor of Although Tri State had Merchants. Notice was not mailed to Tri State. the FDIC for the breach of contract by Merchants. actual knowledge of the receivership. Tri State and the FDIC began a review of Tri State's obligations under the agreements between Tri State and Merchants. correspondence between Tri State and the FDIC. the loan agreements were enforceable. The FDIC finished its review and analysis of the agreements and concluded that At no time did the FDIC inform Trito the FDIC under a formal claims The FDIC was also appointed receiver for Metro North.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EC0DA1401999D9E88256ED900693A89/$file/0330339.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court clerk was to send these reports to the United States Sentencing Commission. We are asked to decide whether the district court exceeded its statutory or inherent authority. The United States argues that we have jurisdiction to consider its direct appeal from the district court's order denying its motion to set aside the Standing Order in this criminal case. Which was one of the first cases in which the Standing Order's requirements were triggered. If appellate jurisdiction is lacking. These questions have divided our panel. We are unanimous as to Sections I and III. Provides insight into how the requirement generally was satisfied: Most districts ask the probation office to submit the sentencing documents. This is. Particularly where the probation office is not involved in the proceeding. The Memorandum of Understanding set forth the complete list of documents to be submitted as part of the sentencing report and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1361.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were William J. With her on the brief were James M. With him on the brief were Charles H. Of counsel was Ahmed J. With him on the brief were Marc G. Of counsel on the brief was J. With him on the brief was Matthew S. Of counsel on the brief was John D. Of counsel was Joseph B. Philips specified that the same royalty was due for each disc manufactured by the licensee using patents included in the package. Regardless of how many of the patents were used. Potential licensees who sought to license patents to the technology for manufacturing CD Rs or CD RWs were not allowed to license those patents individually and were not offered a lower royalty rate for licenses to fewer than all the patents in a package. Were violating section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930. Were added through intervention. As a condition of licensing patents that were necessary to manufacture CD Rs or CD RWs. To take licenses to other patents that were not necessary to manufacture those products. The respondents argued that a number of the patents that Philips had included in the category of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/996020P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this appeal from the final order of the bankruptcy court. BACKGROUND The facts are undisputed. Debtors Kevin and Kenda Wedemeier are farmers in Iowa. Both lease contracts were for a term of one year. The nature of the soil and season will permit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/97-8299.ma2.html">CRAWFORD V. BABBITT (8/30/1999, NO. 97-8299)<BR></A><BR>
Was sexually harassed by her supervisors and then retaliated against when she complained about it. The decision informed Crawford that if she was dissatisfied. We will refer to Babbitt as the Agency). The Agency responded that since compensatory damages were not awarded as part of its final decision. After Crawford's motion for reconsideration of that order was denied.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-5267a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Joseph D. With him on the brief were Peter D. We must decide whether an employee who secures a final administrative disposition finding discrimination but who is dissatisfied with the remedy may challenge only the remedy in the federal court action. When discrimination is found. The employing agency's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200704/06-1270a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Joseph P. With her on the brief were Peter D. Demonstrating to the FDA that its drug is in all relevant aspects equivalent to Marinol. This case was filed under seal pursuant to Petitioner/Appellant's request. The Petitioner/Appellant is referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1500_029.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He argues that summary judgment on his cell conditions claims was inappropriate. Although Thornton maintains the district court's decision to conduct the trial of the yard exercise claim by videoconference was erroneous. I. BACKGROUND Rodger Thornton is an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections serving a life sentence. The grievance stated in part: This seg cell north 106 is in very poor shape. There is 2 to 3 inches of water on the floor. The water that comes from the sink is discolored it looks like rust water. The conditions of this mattress sir is so bad that there is no way that I can or will sleep on it. Thornton was furnished with a satisfactory mattress on May 11. Sir please help this is just not right at all. . . . Where Thornton was incarcerated at the time. Testified under oath that Thornton was serving a life sentence. Was classified as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/97-8299.ma2.html">CRAWFORD V. BABBITT (8/30/1999, NO. 97-8299)<BR></A><BR>
Was sexually harassed by her supervisors and then retaliated against when she complained about it. The decision informed Crawford that if she was dissatisfied. We will refer to Babbitt as the Agency). The Agency responded that since compensatory damages were not awarded as part of its final decision. After Crawford's motion for reconsideration of that order was denied.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/036021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The financing order was modified to include a budget and to limit the disbursement for employee salaries and benefits. The principal balance due at that time was $220. It also is seeking interest as of January 21. The bankrupcy court granted the trustee's motion to amend the order and found that the section 364(c)(1) priority administrative expense claim is subordinate to Chapter 7 administrative expenses. The court then found that it was within its discretion to amend the order of November 15. To clarify that the Chapter 7 administrative fees have priority in payment above section 364(c)(1) priority. Giving due regard to the opportunity of the bankruptcy court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.2 The decision to award administrative expense priority is within the discretion of the bankruptcy judge.3 We review such a decision for abuse Gourley v. N.Y. 1996). 3 3 2 of that discretion.4 A court abuses its discretion
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4318.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That is. The Commissioner may not discredit the claimant's testimony as to subjective symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective evidence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/026053P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the amount now due and payable was $937. The trustee responded that she was talking to several potential purchasers of the lease. She also stated that the lease was the only asset of value in the estate. No extension was necessary. The trustee stated that AgriProcessors was interested in purchasing the lease from the bankruptcy estate. In so doing the court noted that the lease was Tama's most significant asset. The Bankruptcy Estate agrees that if the Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 8(d) above. AgriProcessors objected to the trustee's motion to amend the motion to assume and assign on the grounds that the negotiating procedures were not clearly spelled out in her motion. The court further noted that outside of bankruptcy AgriProcessors would not have been entitled to be paid its cost of making its offer if it lost the bidding. Giving due regard to the opportunity of the bankruptcy court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.3 The decision to award administrative expense priority is within the discretion of the bankruptcy judge.4 We review such a decision for abuse No one questioned Iowa Beef's participation at the hearing of July 9.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-9016.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant.</P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA3MTgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0718-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Held that: (1) joinder of the City to preexisting action was proper. Are certified to the New York Court of Appeals. The District Court interpreted certain state laws and Onondaga County Administrative Code provisions concerning whether or not the approval of the Syracuse Common Council was required before the Commissioner of Drainage and Sanitation could condemn City land for sewer district purposes. The City argues that not only was the District Court precluded from joining it as a party to the litigation. Is located at the southern end of Onondaga Lake. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/981906.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold today that because the discussion on appellate jurisdiction in Forney is founded upon specific language located within the Social Security Act. We will dismiss Kreider's appeal (No. 98 1982) for lack of jurisdiction. We find that we do have appellate jurisdiction over the timely appeal filed by the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0193n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Policy defines
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0861p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendants have appealed the denial of their motions to dismiss on absolute and qualified immunity grounds. These appeals were first heard by a panel of this court. Which was bound by Prisco v. In that case it was held that a defendant may not appeal the denial of a claim of qualified immunity under the collateral order doctrine if the defendant would nevertheless be required to go to trial on a claim for injunctive relief. When the panel opinion was circulated to the full court before publication. The issues addressed in the remainder of this opinion have been considered by the panel only. We are called upon to decide whether the members of the County Council are entitled to immunity from suit for their actions of enacting two ordinances which down zoned Acierno's commercial property. We conclude that both the present and former members of the County Council are immune from suit because the actions they took with respect to Acierno's commercial property were either substantively and procedurally legislative in nature.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3171.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Nelson was terminated for cause. We conclude that she has not shown she is entitled to restoration to duty. She was required to complete a 90 day probationary period. Nelson was involved in a motor vehicle accident with another postal vehicle and sustained an injury to her right hand. Nelson was granted two days off and returned on December 13. Even though flexibility is a key element of this position.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/Jan2000/993191.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although we have some question about the chronology of events. She alleges that in April of 1992 she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-5418b.pdf">O:\CIRCULATED OPINIONS\NLRB V. COOPER TIRE\FINAL OPINION.WPD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Nancy A. With him on the brief was Helene D. Circuit Judge: The threshold issue in this case is whether the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had jurisdiction to enforce subpoenas issued by the National Labor Relations Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/01-1221a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Arthur M. With her on the brief were David M. The Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that Adams's application was untimely because it was not filed within 30 days of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1389p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
INTRODUCTION Before the in banc court is an appeal by NationsBank of Tennessee (Collateral Trustee) and New Jersey National Bank. Who are collectively referred to in this opinion as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/01-10192.opn.html">CORY D. V. BURKE COUNTY SCH. DIST. (3/18/2002, NO. 01-10192)<BR></A><BR>
Even if a 30 day limitations period for requesting judicial review is applied to the IDEA. To ensure children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to each IEP. Among these measures is a requirement that if parents of a disabled child disagree with their local educational agency regarding the appropriateness of the child's current IEP. Informal review procedures have failed. The parents have the right to resolve the matter in an impartial due process hearing to be conducted by the agency. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4017_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that the Secretary is correct: the Commission's decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and therefore the case must be remanded to the agency with instructions to affirm the citations. 2 I No. 04 4017 Gunite's foundry in Rockford makes brakes and wheels for heavy trucks. The castings are shaken from the molds. The amount of this dust is enormous. Breathing silica is dangerous for the foundry's workers. Gunite's foundry was built in the first half of the twentieth century. They too were ineffective. Even though they were still being used several years later when OSHA entered the picture. Another insurer measured the air four times between June 1996 and March No. 04 4017 3 1998 and found that foundry employees including those at the positions listed in the citations at issue before us were being exposed to levels of respirable silica in excess of OSHA's PEL. Gunite seems to have ignored that recommendation. Two reports from Kemper NATLSCO in 1997 indicated that employees still were not being required to wear the individual respiratory protection.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/052485P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court concluded the denial was supported by substantial evidence. The district court should have used a de novo standard. Who concluded she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1538.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. *Of the District of Massachusetts. The basic question in this appeal is whether or not the United States Department of Education (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-7106.htm">03-7106 -- HOOVER V. WEST -- 02/19/2004<BR></A><BR>
1983 while he was incarcerated. Assaulted and battered Plaintiff while he was wearing full restraints during his cellmate's cell abstraction. Defendants have since conceded that the Warden's office made a mistake regarding this rationale. As no other previous grievance was filed regarding this incident. <p> Plaintiff then appealed the issue to the Administrative Review Authority (ARA). The Exhaustion Requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act</strong> <strong>(PLRA)</strong> <p> The general rule is that plaintiffs need not exhaust administrative remedies before filing a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/981545P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was based on three separate Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints. This discrimination lawsuit is based on three EEO complaints she filed. The only issue is whether she is entitled to equitable tolling of the 45 day limit. It is well established that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0433n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It does not change our conclusion that the district court's grant of summary judgment was proper. Who is black. Was born and raised in Nigeria. Momah applied for and was selected to fill a vacant Administrative Judge position in the EEOC's Memphis. It was his intention that they would join him in Memphis once he found a house for the family. Momah was hospitalized after being physically assaulted by a white supremacist at a gas station. He did not have the authority to do so. The director of the Memphis office where Momah was then working as an Administrative Judge. EEOC headquarters notified Momah that it
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-3119.html">TODD R. HAEBE V. DEPT. OF JUSTICE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for respondent.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3809.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendant Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) and its predecessor organization have. The discharges were reduced in number and volume after MMSD's system's capacity was expanded by the Deep Tunnel. Which was completed in 1994. Discharges from sanitary sewers (which 2 No. 03 3809 violate the Clean Water Act and MMSD's discharge permit) have persisted despite expectations that the Deep Tunnel would virtually eliminate them. Dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the suit was barred by the terms of the Clean Water Act. I. Background MMSD is a state chartered government agency providing wastewater services to 28 municipalities in southeast Wisconsin. Separate sewers have separate pipes for storm water (which empties directly into area waterways) and sanitary waste (which empties into MMSD's system where it can be treated). Which are mostly older sewer systems. Are designed to carry both storm water and sanitary waste in the same pipes.1 MMSD's discharge permit There are advantages and disadvantages to combined sewer systems.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D6495646EB35EBE882571ED007FCF23/$file/0455122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Our jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Are not suspected of fraud or ineligibility. Are automatically enrolled in Project 100%. The parties are essentially in agreement as to the structure and operation of Project 100%. The visit includes a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/951893P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was not an exempt administrative employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The clerks were terminated as part of a downsizing effort by GS. Which at the time of his retirement was $42. GS argued that Spinden was exempt from the FLSA's overtime compensation provisions because he was an administrative employee under the definition provided by the FLSA's enabling regulations. Spinden's claim for overtime compensation was tried by the district court in a bench trial. The discrimination suit was simultaneously tried before a jury. We may have set the standard up a little bit too low.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3BDEF1A6616EB5C288256EA800804DD6/$file/0236132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Petitioner Sokha Sun was born in a refugee camp in Thailand as a Cambodian refugee. Sun's status was adjusted to lawful permanent resident (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110192.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even if a 30 day limitations period for requesting judicial review is applied to the IDEA. To ensure children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to each IEP. Among these measures is a requirement that if parents of a disabled child disagree with their local educational agency regarding the appropriateness of the child's current IEP. Informal review procedures have failed. The parents have the right to resolve the matter in an impartial due process hearing to be conducted by the agency. Factual Background Appellant is a 17 year old boy who suffers from mild mental retardation. The MDT determined Appellant's behavior was unrelated to his disability.1 The MDT's finding was then referred to Appellee's disciplinary tribunal. Section 1415(k)(5)(A) states that if the behavior of a child with a disability is determined not to be a manifestation of his or her disability. Appellant claimed he was not receiving the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1403.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is. Ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. Florence is currently a prisoner in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/003283P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court refused to dismiss his complaint as the so called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/01-10192.opn.html">CORY D. V. BURKE COUNTY SCH. DIST. (3/18/2002, NO. 01-10192)<BR></A><BR>
Even if a 30 day limitations period for requesting judicial review is applied to the IDEA. To ensure children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to each IEP. Among these measures is a requirement that if parents of a disabled child disagree with their local educational agency regarding the appropriateness of the child's current IEP. Informal review procedures have failed. The parents have the right to resolve the matter in an impartial due process hearing to be conducted by the agency. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1221a.html">RICHARD J. ADAMS V. SEC<BR></A><BR>
Dorfman argued the cause for petitioner.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1097.html">U.S. V. CHERRY HILL TEXTILES, INC.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-14391.man.html">NAJJAR V. ASHCROFT (7/18/2001, NO. 99-14391)<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032773p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Its implementing regulations1 are preempted because its solid waste disposal facility involves transportation by railroad and is therefore subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1723a.html">TIME WARNER ENTRTNMT V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyMjlfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9229_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That Plaintiff Appellee was entitled to disability benefits under a long term disability plan provided through an insurance policy issued by Defendant Appellant. That PlaintiffAppellee Marianne Locher was entitled to disability benefits under a long term disability plan provided by her employer through an insurance policy issued by Defendant Appellant. We affirm the judgment of the District Court and write to clarify the standard to be applied by district courts in determining whether to consider evidence outside the administrative record upon a de novo review of factual issues bearing on an administrator's denial of ERISA benefits. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 BACKGROUND The following are facts that the District Court found. Was employed as a legal secretary at Katten Muchin & Zavis (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/98-5222.htm">98-5222 -- OXY USA, INC. V. BABBITT -- 10/10/2001<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <strong><hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1920VOL1.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Middleton</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. The Blind Vendors' claim is that New Hampshire did not give proper
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/023829p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will vacate the District Court's judgment1 and remand 1. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We have plenary review over a district court's grant of a habeas corpus petition. Andrea Duvall is a native and citizen of Jamaica who. Was convicted of another incident of retail theft. These pleas did not account for all of the other criminal offenses with which she was charged. Other charges were dropped in exchange for her testimony against a coconspirator. She was convicted on two more unrelated charges of retail theft and for possession of burglar's tools. Charging that she was an alien subject to removal for having been convicted for two new crimes involving moral turpitude. For being convicted of an aggravated felony involving a theft offense for which a term of imprisonment of at least one year was imposed. The District Court focused wholly on the collateral estoppel issue and held that the Service was barred from relitigating the issue of alienage. The District Court gave short shrift to the question of the court's jurisdiction and indeed erred in holding that Duvall did not have to exhaust administrative remedies.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/f642cb3cb49aa49988256abf007c1509/$FILE/0015085.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is an appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A8BED8F1D5D767188256CDE007859CF/$file/0255119.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are former principals or vice principals of public schools within the San Diego School District. Who are members of the board governing the District. The district court held that there were factual issues in dispute to be resolved by a jury. We hold that no further facts need to be determined and that as a matter of law the defendants are protected by qualified immunity because the plaintiffs have no clearly established right to continue in their administrative positions. The chancellor responded by explaining that a different style of leadership was required in the positions they had held. The district court ruled that there was a factual dispute as to whether Administrative Procedures 7113 and 7767 applied to the plaintiffs and that that dispute must be tried to 3064 BERNSTEIN v. Qualified immunity is a judicially crafted device giving a large measure of protection to the exercise of judgment by public officials. Indeed it is said to protect
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2055.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief. P.S.C.</SPAN> was on brief. Esso contends that the Board is so biased that its adjudication of the case violates the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Guez alleged that Esso was responsible for the loss of between 65. The EQB is an administrative agency created by the Environmental Public Policy Act. Which is 5. Is based on Esso's alleged failure to promptly notify the EQB of a fuel release from the pre 1991 UST system and to remedy that release. Any fine that the EQB collects will be deposited into a discretionary account administered by the EQB and disbursed by its chairman. 12 L.P.R.A. § 1136(f). The $76 million proposed fine is twice the EQB's annual operating budget. </P> <P> The district court acknowledged testimony by Miguel Morales. That he was surprised by the amount of the proposed fine because the EQB imposed either no fine or a fine of less than $100. Morales also noted that some of the information included in the show cause order appears to have been provided by Belgodere.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2156.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33BEAFFE3B4C764C88256F1F007CC85A/$file/0171171.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Alcarazes were statutorily eligible for suspension of deportation at the time they submitted their application. Before the date their applications were to be heard on the merits. They were denied suspension of deportation because they fell thirty days short of the seven year residency requirement under IIRIRA's new statutory scheme. Before the Alcarazes' appeal was heard by the BIA. The cases of qualifying aliens were administratively closed to allow the aliens to reapply for cancellation of removal. It failed to consider them for repapering despite the fact that they were 14168 ALCARAZ v. It was obligated to repaper the Alcarazes. An alien was eligible for suspension of deportation if: (1) he or she had been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the date an alien filed an application for suspension of deportation. (2) he or she was a person of good moral character. (3) deportation would result in extreme hardship to either the alien or an immediate family member who was a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F642CB3CB49AA49988256ABF007C1509/$file/0015085.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is an appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-3326.html">CHEGUINA V. MSPB<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ3NzQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4774-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was not required to exhaust administrative remedies and. : Frank Ruggiero alleges that he was subjected to excessive force by corrections officers on multiple occasions during his incarceration at Orange County Correctional Facility (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0020p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and were contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7991D1B934EE9DE8825734D0053440E/$file/0615972.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Roy Allen O'Guinn is a Nevada state prisoner who has sued prison officials claiming they denied him accommodation and treatment for his mental illness. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I O'Guinn is a prisoner at Lovelock Correctional Center. Which in the past have required medical treatment. The complaint was filed on a form entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1214p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the action was not time barred and that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/54A7C3290D812FA088256C140059D875/$file/0115474.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argues that Bothell is an exempt
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1123a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The underlying administrative proceeding against the Carlisle Area School District was commenced by Scott P. We must address the parents' contention that the administrative and judicial proceedings were procedurally defective because of an alleged violation of IDEA's efficiency oriented finality requirements stemming from the district court's two remands to the appeals panel for clarification. We conclude that the appeals panel's review is plenary except that it is required to defer to the hearing officer's credibility determinations unless non testimonial. They are not required to prove the inappropriateness of any competing plans advocated by parents. The district court did not err in concluding that residential placement was not proper. We conclude that the award of compensatory education was improper here because there was no record evidence of any violation during the year purporting to serve as the basis for the award. Which other courts have required as a precondition to a compensatory education award.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0362p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Did not support the Government's claim that Abdi was an escape risk. Argues that the district court was correct in applying the suppression remedy for the warrantless arrest because it violated 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) and further. That the Government lacked probable cause to arrest him for a felony as required by the Fourth Amendment.2 Because we find that suppression is not an appropriate remedy for violation of the administrative warrant requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). That Abdi's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by his public warrantless arrest based on probable cause. The essential background facts are as follows. A known and now convicted member of the Al Qaeda organization who was The Government argues that it satisfied the exception to the administrative warrant requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) because Abdi's arrest was based on probable cause and a well founded belief that Abdi presented an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6359838A8300E8B1882572F300822DAE/$file/0516975.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CV 03 06386 JKS *Nancy Ruthenbeck is substituted for Del A. P. 43(c)(2). ** Mike Johanns is substituted for Ann M. Chief Judge Schroeder and Judge Graber have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED. Plaintiffs Appellees' motion for clarification with regard to the applicability of the opinion to both 36 C.F.R. §§ 215.12(f) and 215.4(a) and inapplicability of the opinion to 36 C.F.R. § 215.18(b)(1) is GRANTED. Is amended and. The attached amended opinion is substituted in its place. Overview This is a government appeal from a district court judgment enjoining Forest Service regulations that govern review of decisions implementing forest plans. On the ground that the regulations were manifestly contrary to the governing statute. The environmentalist plaintiffs Earth Island Institute et al. challenge the four regulations the district court held were valid. We agree with the district court that plaintiffs have established standing. 36 C.F.R. §§ 215.12(f) and 215.4(a) have actually been applied to a proposed project.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0896n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. DeBoard was almost 37 years old at the time she filed the application at issue herein. The application was denied and she did not appeal that denial. The application was denied initially. The motion for reconsideration was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that DeBoard retained the residual functional capacity. Contending that the Commissioner's finding that she was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E3835F722B7CD2F58825707C004BCCF6/$file/0356314.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rockwell prevailed and was awarded attorney fees and costs by the state court. The BAP majority held that the entire award was encompassed in the discharge. We hold that the fees and costs incurred post petition were not discharged. The bankruptcy court ruled that the cause of action was exempt. Section 1033.5(a)(10) states that attorney fees are allowable costs under § 1032 where they are authorized by contract. 030.78) was not discharged. It held that Rockwell was free to collect this
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1324.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Billings & Silverstein was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Contending that his involuntary emergency admission was not. He was sentenced to five years probation and ordered to pay a $100 assessment. Chamberlain was involuntarily admitted. The application further stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/690417fe8f7395d888256e5a00707cb1/$FILE/0015085.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is an appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200610/03-1456a.pdf">O:\2005-2006 TERM\03-20-06 SITTING\03-1456 AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL V. DOT\OPINION\AMERICAN_CHEMISTRYFINALV2.WPD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Nicholas J. Ackerman were on the brief for intervenors Utility Solid Waste Activities Group. On the brief were Peter D. Transporters challenge a Department of Transportation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/02-5032a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1226.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Richard M. With him on the brief was Barbara S. Of counsel on the brief was Beth C. This is a statutory construction case. The issue before us is what duty rate applies to entries that have been
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1226c.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief was Richard M. With him on the brief was Barbara S. Of counsel on the brief was Beth C. This is a statutory construction case. The issue before us is what duty rate applies to entries that have been
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3531_042.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the other named officials knew about and did nothing to stop Laird's activities until after Kaba was actually beaten in his cell on February 23. Because we find there are disputed issues of fact about whether administrative remedies were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-14391.man.html">NAJJAR V. ASHCROFT (7/18/2001, NO. 99-14391)<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/690417FE8F7395D888256E5A00707CB1/$file/0015085.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is an appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-3102.html">DICK V. DEPT. OF VETERAN AFFAIRS<BR></A><BR>
Argued for respondent.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961911.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The gravamen of his appeal is that Tysons National Bank (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C44B81CE10DDB4DF88256CCD0060AB82/$file/0116724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/96-1449a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Baumann were on brief. Were on brief. Were on the brief. Cosentino were on brief. Hochberg and Judith Jurin Semo were on brief. Royalties are apportioned among eight classes of claimants. In Phase II awards are made to individual copyright owners within each of the classes. The panel's proposal is then forwarded to the Librari an. Each of the petitioners here is a disappointed class claim ant challenging the Librarian's Phase I distribution of royal ties collected for the years 1990. Because our review of the Librarian's decision is limited. I. BACKGROUND In 1974 the Supreme Court ruled that a cable television system's retransmission of non network copyrighted pro graming to markets distant from those to which it was originally broadcast was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/973859P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The sole question presented for review by the Court en banc is the threshold question of whether Hartford has statutory standing to surcharge Magna's collateral under 11 U.S.C. § 506(c) (1994). It was indebted to Magna in the amount of approximately $4.1 million. The Bankruptcy Court approved the loan agreement in its final financing order and authorized the Debtor to use the proceeds of the postpetition loan and the cash collateral that was subject to Magna's security interest to pay expenses set forth in an appended budget. Upon Magna is the successor in interest to Landmark Bank of Illinois. 1998 Magna was absorbed by merger into Union Planters National Bank. 22 approval of the loan agreement. When the Chapter 11 reorganization failed and the Debtor's case was converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding. That non trustees have standing under § 506(c) to surcharge a secured creditor's collateral. That Boatmen's was controlling and that Hartford 3 therefore had standing to seek recovery under § 506(c). Is established by the Bankruptcy Code.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/012889P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Robert Clark was a twelve year old special education student in the Neosho RV School District during the 1997 98 school year. Robert is prone to inappropriate behavior. He also is diagnosed as having a learning disability. Robert's age was equal to children in the sixth grade. He was placed in the fifth grade resource room for special education. His instructional level was that of fourth grade. The IEPs also stated that a behavior plan was attached to them. The attachments were merely short term goals and objectives that did not provide specific interventions and strategies to manage Robert's behavior problems. The IEP team never adopted this document and had agreed that a new behavior management plan was necessary to meet Robert's needs during the 1997 98 school year. The Clarks were seeking. These were insufficient to qualify as a cohesive behavior management plan. The panel also found that the School District's late in the year attempt to formulate the required behavior management plan was insufficient to meet Robert's needs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2172.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3290.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Because the Board's decision is both arbitrary and not supported by substantial evidence. When he asked how much the deposit will cost. He was told by a government counselor that it would cost
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-8899.man.html">HARRIS V. GARNER (9/30/1999, NO. 98-8899)<BR></A><BR>
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0913p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the District Court of the Virgin Islands denying defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint seeking damages for termination of plaintiff's employment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act. The district court held (1) that the count filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 was actionable because the Civil Rights Act of 1991 applies retroactively to claims pending on the date of the Act's enactment. (2) that the count filed under the Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act was actionable because that Act does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The appellant Virgin Islands Telephone Company (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3341.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The case was tried to the magistrate judge. Arguing that this court was without jurisdiction because the order from which MDOC appeals was inherently tentative. The order from which MDOC appeals is the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The threshold question is whether the Tribe is immune from suit. We conclude that it is not. We next address whether the Tribe is subject to the ADEA in these circumstances. We 10714 conclude that it is not. Resolution of this issue is a pure question of law that is currently ripe for review and. Is best resolved at the subpoena enforcement stage. The Tribe does not have its own reservation but instead occupies land held in trust by the United States. Is a governmental arm of the Tribe. Was particularly concerned with
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was invalid. Moved to the United States in 1979 when he was five years old. Sosa lived with his parents in Brooklyn until he He stopped attending school at was 17 and remains close to them. age 17. He was sentenced to 18 months' to On July 11. He was sentenced to 15 days' imprisonment. While Sosa was incarcerated for his 1992 conviction. No further action was taken on the deportation proceeding. Sosa was released on parole by the New York authorities on March 15. Sosa admitted that he was not a citizen of the United States and that he was a citizen of El Salvador. My first question is this. If I was to be removed from the United States how long will it be on punishment? How long will it be to come back? I have no family in El Salvador. The IJ then stated that the decision was final. The issues on this appeal arise from the fact that the IJ never informed Sosa that he was eligible to seek discretionary relief from deportation under former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (
|
|
01-1237 -- HALL V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 08/20/2002
UNUM's principal argument is that the district court improperly considered evidence outside of the administrative record relied upon by UNUM when it terminated Hall's benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
|
|
URBAN V. JEFFERSON CTY. SCH. DIST.
An IEP is a written statement of (1) the child's present performance level. The part of the IEP at issue in this case is the statement of transition services activities that help the student move from school to a post school environment. 20 U.S.C. 1401(a)(19). Parents are also entitled to bring a complaint on any matter relating to the evaluation or placement of their child and to seek an impartial due process hearing after bringing a complaint. 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(2). Until he was twenty one. Gregory would have attended Evergreen High School. The Challenge Program was designed to provide education and support services to children with severe disabilities. Plus was an adaptive physical education program. Plus was available at Gregory's neighborhood high school in Evergreen. Gregory's parents were not present at the conference because they could not take time off from work. Arguing that the District violated Gregory's right to a free appropriate public education by (1) assigning Gregory to a school other than the one which he would have attended had he not been disabled and (2) failing to assess Gregory's need for.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Robert J. This case requires us to determine whether a judicial proceeding to recover attorneys' fees incurred in a prior IDEA administrative proceeding is a separate
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
(2) the finding of liability was supported by the record. Dust was blowing from and around the bags. Reasoning that the complaint was filed more than one year from the violations and was not eligible for a waiver under 42 U.S.C. § 7413(d)(1). Was ambiguous and deferred to the EPA's interpretation. Determined that there was substantial evidence supporting the EAB's decision. That the penalty imposed was not an abuse of discretion. Administrative Jurisdiction Lyon County first claims that the EPA did not have the jurisdiction to bring an administrative action. The court will defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of a statute it is charged with administering if the statute is ambiguous. Or the interpretation is consistent with the plain meaning of the statute. Lyon County argues that the EPA is not due Chevron deference when it is interpreting the question of its own jurisdiction. 1004 05 (8th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that Chevron would apply to jurisdictional question but determining that the statute was clear).2 Lyon County also argues that the interpretation advocated by the EPA is a result of an informal process and not due full Chevron deference.
|
|
TA CHEN STAINLESS STEEL PIPE, INC V. U.S.
Argued for plaintiff appellant.
|
|
98-3124 -- HOLMAN V. BOOKER -- 12/14/1998
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Eric U. He was arrested in Michigan and was charged with various drug and weapons related crimes. Holman was sentenced to a term of 101 months imprisonment. His sentence was summarily affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Was denied. He was a prisoner of the State of Michigan at some point. Although the record is unclear as to dates and times of transfer. This suit was dismissed by the district court. The nature of which is unclear from the record. Which was dismissed by the federal district court. These Kansas cases have been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See R. Holman also stated that he was maintaining at least two other federal lawsuits. Which apparently were filed in district courts within the Eleventh and Third Circuits. The only clues contained in the record which point to the substance of Holman's allegations are a document from the Leavenworth warden denying various claims Holman had made.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The threshold question is whether the Tribe is immune from suit. We conclude that it is not. We next address whether the Tribe is subject to the ADEA in these circumstances. We 10714 conclude that it is not. Resolution of this issue is a pure question of law that is currently ripe for review and. Is best resolved at the subpoena enforcement stage. The Tribe does not have its own reservation but instead occupies land held in trust by the United States. Is a governmental arm of the Tribe. Was particularly concerned with
|
|
ENVIROCARE OF UTAH V. NRC
With him on the briefs was Lynda L. With him on the brief were Lois J. Rader were on the brief for intervenors. Before: Edwards. Permit persons to intervene in administrative proceedings even though these persons would not have stand ing to challenge the agency's final action in federal court. Agencies. Are not constrained by Article III of the Constitution. Nor are they governed by judicially created standing doctrines restricting access to the federal courts. The criteria for establishing
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Robert Arnold (the Inmates) are prisoners housed in Missouri's Jefferson City Correctional Center's (JCCC) administrative segregation unit.1 brought separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions They *THE HONORABLE ALFRED T. Plaintiff Michael Saunders' action was dismissed under Rule 41(a) on December 17. I. JCCC is a maximum security prison housing approximately 2000 of Missouri's most dangerous criminals. housing categories: general administrative segregation. number of privileges. Prisoners are assigned to three protective custody. We reverse the General population allows inmates the greatest Inmates in general population may have food. Are allowed to attend group religious services. Have telephone access. Have recreation with others. Inmates in protective custody have much the same privileges as general population inmates. Administrative setting. segregation is the most restrictive confinement Protective custody inmates have canteen privileges For their own and others' safety. Inmates in administrative Administrative segregation inmates have very few segregation are housed in individual cells and kept separate from all other inmates at all times. privileges.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Keck claims his classification to administrative segregation was effected in violation of his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. As we are obliged to do. When he was assigned to administrative segregation following a disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty of assault. Was granted reprieve by Associate Warden Steven Hartley who authorized his release back into the general prison population on August 30. Keck was again the subject of disciplinary proceedings on September 24. Keck was found guilty and subject to. Asserting that he satisfied his mandatory punitive segregation and that if his continued segregation was a result of being classified to administrative segregation. Was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
As the issues raised in this appeal are matters of first impression among the courts of appeals.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for co appellees Wackenhut Corrections Corporation and Gerardo Acevedo.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Some background concerning that program is necessary in order to understand the context of this appeal. The Medicare program is a federallysubsidized health insurance program primarily for elderly and disabled individuals. Which is a hospital insurance program that covered payments for the costs of inpatient hospital services. Much of the administration of Part A is handled by private contractors. The costs of educational activities and of inpatient hospital services were reimbursed by Medicare based upon a provider's reasonable costs. Whereby hospitals were paid a standardized rate based on the diagnostic classification for the services rendered. Costs incurred in connection with graduate medical education (
|
|
HARRIS V. GARNER (9/30/1999, NO. 98-8899)
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The licensee must obtain two separate FCC Susquehanna also contends the district court should have granted it summary judgment under the equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel. In the event the [FCC] grants a Construction Permit (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Yale successfully argued that the denial of the claims on the categorical ground of FDA classification was predicated on a rule altering the previous Medicare practice of conducting device by device review of safety and efficacy. That the rule change was improperly adopted. We agree with the district court that the new rule is unenforceable because the Secretary did not satisfactorily explain his reasons for its promulgation. Which at the time of the events at issue was administered by the Health Care Financing Administration (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The complaint asserted that the appellees had violated Jenkins' due process and equal protection rights in disciplinary proceedings in which sanctions were imposed. The original sanction period imposed in those proceedings was reduced on Jenkins' administrative appeal. It is undisputed that the administrative appeal exhausted Jenkins' conventional administrative remedies. It is also undisputed that Jenkins did not appeal from the imposition of the reduced sanctions to the Superior Court of New Jersey. The summons and complaint were served on Morton and Tyler but McGovern was not served. Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. 42 U.S.C. R. 2:2 3(a)(2).1 The court then indicated: that the sanction imposed upon the plaintiff by the Department of Corrections was a final agency decision and as such. Plaintiff's next remedy was to challenge the decision with the Appellate Division. The Administrative Code provisions for appeal of disciplinary decisions are set forth in N.J.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court concluded that the 2001 ROD was not arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. We have jurisdiction on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The electric power generated by the Federal Columbia River Power System is marketed by the Bonneville Power Administration. The Lower Granite dam are on the lower Snake River1 in Washington state and are the subject of this The lower Snake River spans a 140 mile stretch of the Snake River. Each of these dams was built pursuant to Congressional mandate. For the four dams that are the subject of this lawsuit. No exemption was sought or received in this case. 4 The Washington State Department of Ecology has the authority to promulgate water quality standards to carry out the provisions of Chapter 90 of the Washington Revised Code. Of which certain portions thereof are within the jurisdictional limits of this state. No temperature increase will be allowed which will raise the receiving water temperature by greater than 0.3oC.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. Appellee NationsBank is a federal contractor and thus subject to Executive Order 11246. Alleging that the OFCCP's selection of the Tampa and Columbia offices for review (and thus for the searches incident to such a review) was unreasonable. Holding that we have jurisdiction to review both rulings on interlocutory appeal. To argue that a court of appeals should only exercise jurisdiction under section 1292(a)(1) when the injunction is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. I Johnson is an African American woman who works at the Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Callahan were on brief. Greenspan were on brief. Apart from the four for which she was convicted.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. GONZALES 7139 (1) he is a citizen of the United States. (2) the BIA erred in granting a motion to reconsider its own decision that he was eligible for withholding of deportation. We conclude that we have jurisdiction to review Theagene's nationality claim. Because service in the armed forces is not itself sufficient to ground a claim for nationality. I. Background Theagene is a native of Haiti who was admitted to the United States in April 1974. When he was six years old. He was honorably discharged from the service. Theagene was convicted of first degree residential burglary in California. The proceedings were initiated pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2) (A)(iii). GONZALES is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
On the brief were Eric J. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Rafael A. On the brief was Joseph S. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Rafael A. Provides benefits to the relatives of public safety officers who are killed as the result of injuries sustained in the line of duty. The statute also provides benefits to public safety officers who are permanently disabled. Educational benefits to dependents of federal law enforcement officers who are killed or disabled in the line of duty. Whether the decedent was a public safety officer who died under circumstances that entitle the beneficiaries to an award under the statute. 42 U.S.C. § 3796(a). Judicial review of the BJA's decisions is available in the Court of Federal Claims. This is a consolidated appeal from two decisions of the Court of Federal Claims. The two cases both involve challenges to BJA determinations denying death benefits to the relatives of pilots who were employed by private contractors and who died while rendering fire suppression assistance to public agencies.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
It was improper for the DEA to use administrative forfeiture instead of judicial forfeiture. We will deny CIGNA's Petition for Review. That agreement was not filed with the FAA (as required by law) until after seizure of the plane more than three years later. CIGNA insured the jet under a standard policy which was later amended at Yskamp's request to cover losses caused by war or confiscation. Which was granted. Yskamp conceded that this flight and a prior one with the same suspects were odd. Because the bulk of the payment was in cash. The turn around time was short. Pilots for Yskamp stated initially (but later retracted when Yskamp was present) that they had informed him of their suspicions. Even though Haldan was not named on the policy. Included with this notice was a petition for expedited release of the jet. Confirming its understanding that the DEA would proceed on the petition for expedited release and stating that CIGNA's decision whether to post bond was still pending. That neither Yskamp nor CIGNA had taken reasonable steps to assure that the jet was not used for conveying illegal drugs.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Booth alleges that while he was confined in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Correctional Institute at Smithfield. Or other 2 correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is withdrawn. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW John Dishman was Executive Director of the Adams. (4)
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A mixed case is one where a federal employee alleges that she suffered from an adverse agency action appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). That the action was also based on discrimination in violation of Title VII. Valentine Johnson was unsuccessful * The Honorable Kathleen M. She filed an EEO complaint on the basis that she was subjected to racial discrimination. Valentine Johnson was subsequently promoted to be the Director of Family Readiness at the Selfridge Air Force Base in Michigan. A reservist on the base told her that she was not needed at Selfridge and that she should
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Carr was terminated from his job at the prison library allegedly so that the prison could hire an African American to take his job. Prison officials restricted his access to the (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He was immediately placed in administrative segregation. He contends that his appeal of the misconduct conviction exhausts his administrative remedies because
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court concluded on summary judgment that Smith was an administrative employee. Sitting by designation. * One criterion for an employee's falling into the class of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Claims that he was beaten by prison guards in retaliation for punching 2 No. 05 1868 an assistant warden. He did not have the option of mailing the grievance himself. Dole was not given any instructions on what to do next. A new one would have been untimely. Although the ARB will accept untimely filings with good cause shown. Claiming that he strictly complied with all regulations when filing his grievance and did all that he was capable of doing to assure that his complaint reached the ARB. The conduct alleged in Dole's suit Joseph Dole was an inmate at Menard Correctional Center on March 15. As he was being restrained in the prison yard. He claims that he was beaten by defendants Biggs and Hess. He states that he was then transported to the Health Care Unit. Where he was beaten by defendants Chandler. Dole was examined and it was discovered that he had suffered a broken nose and several small abrasions and bruises on his ribs. Dole alleges that he was transported to Tamms Correctional Center in a van with the windows open.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
After the relevant IEP was developed. Explained: No. 02 1538 3 [Eron] is a patient in our Muscular Dystrophy Clinic and has been under our care since 1992. This is a genetic metabolic disorder of the muscles that typically begins in childhood and progresses through adulthood. The characteristics of this disease are muscle fatigue. These patients will often develop dark burgundy colored urine from the abnormal presence of myoglobin (a muscle protein) which is released by the muscles following physical activities that exceed their limitations. Kidney and permanent muscle damage can occur as a result of this and vigorous exercise is to be avoided. Eron was scheduled to participate in physical education during his second (and final) semester at the Freshman Center. The McCormicks submitted several recommendations from doctors that advised Eron to be cautious when exercising and to stop anytime he was winded or felt muscle pain. He would receive a failing grade in physical education and would have to repeat the ninth grade.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
|
|
FAG ITALIA S.P.A V. U.S.
Argued for plaintiff appellant FAG Bearings Corporation and FAG Italia S.p.A.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
There are two interrelated issues in this appeal. Holding that the claims procedures applied to actions against the receiver and that a change of venue was required under FIRREA. We will affirm. I. Plaintiff/appellant Hudson United Bank (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A. Procedural History Jones Bey is a prisoner at the Alger Maximum Correctional Facility in Munsing. Johnson is a guard at the facility. Trierweiler is the prison's grievance coordinator. None of his claims was sufficient to survive summary judgment. Jones Bey alleges that he was arbitrarily refused his
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
John Will Ongman. Which was both the administrator and the funding source of the plan. We have returned to first principles. As we will explain below. This case requires us to consider how a court is to review an ERISA plan administrator's decision when the procedure that produced the decision did not follow all statutory requirements. For the reasons that we will develop. The administrator is not. Only life insurance is at issue in this appeal. The life insurance policy under the plan was originally issued by Home Life Financial Assurance Company. Alta is the successor in interest to Home Life's rights and responsibilities. The insured may request what is commonly referred to as a
|
|
00-2160 -- U.S. V. CLYMORE -- 04/13/2001
Background facts and proceedings The factual history of this case is well documented in Clymore v. Whether equitable tolling is available in forfeiture actions. The question of whether equitable tolling is legally permissible under 19 . 1621
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Defendants Appellees. *Nancy Ruthenbeck is substituted for Del A. Overview This is a government appeal from a district court judgment enjoining Forest Service regulations that govern review of decisions implementing forest plans. On the ground that the regulations were manifestly contrary to the governing statute. RUTHENBECK held were valid. We agree with the district court that plaintiffs have established standing. We hold that only that regulation is ripe for review. The Sierra Club (collectively
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Will & Emery. Ramirez's complaint alleged that his constitutional rights were violated by the procedures utilized in a prison disciplinary hearing. We further conclude that Ramirez's challenge to his term of segregated confinement is cognizable under § 1983 as a potentially atypical and significant hardship. We conclude that the District Court's dismissal of Ramirez's Equal Protection and supervisory liability claims was an abuse of discretion. We will therefore reverse the dismissal. I. BACKGROUND Ramirez is incarcerated at the Corcoran State Prison in California. Was charged with
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Lynda L. With him on the brief were Lois J. Rader were on the brief for intervenors. Permit persons to intervene in administrative proceedings even though these persons would not have stand ing to challenge the agency's final action in federal court. Are not constrained by Article III of the Constitution. Nor are they governed by judicially created standing doctrines restricting access to the federal courts. Is the converse true? This is the ultimate question posed in these consolidated petitions for judicial review of two orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission refusing to grant Envirocare of Utah. I Envirocare was the first commercial facility in the nation the Commission licensed to dispose of certain radioactive byproduct material from offsite sources.2 The Commission had licensed other companies to dispose of such radioactive waste. Only if the waste was produced onsite. Envirocare's basic complaint was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was James M. Inc. is a nonprofit organization operating in the Florida Keys. Before it was resolved. The Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service instituted a disciplinary proceeding against Sugarloaf a pro ceeding to which Marine Mammal was not a party for alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The Department's first line of defense is that we have no jurisdiction in light of Marine Mammal's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. The Department's rules provide that an ALJ's decision does not become final while an appeal of the decision is pending in the agency. That the only final orders of the Secretary
|
|
THE TORRINGTON CO. V. U.S.
|
|
ROBERT C. WILLIAMSON, V. MSPB
Argued for respondent. With her on the brief were Martha B. Reviewing Attorney. Of counsel were David M. Williamson s appeal was refiled with the Atlanta Regional Office of the Board by fax and by mail on January 9. The same day that these documents were unquestionably served on Justice. Williamson s counsel also sent a letter on that same date to the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atlanta Regional Office
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A state that accepts federal funding to educate disabled children must provide such children with an edu 2 No. 03 3858 1 cation that is free. Which is a written statement that maps out how a school district will provide an IDEAcompliant education. Is also a party in her own right. His sister was sexually assaulted. Exactly at what point Alex's learning began to be obstructed is unclear. Although even then learning was still possible with sufficient redirection. That teacher was on 2 maternity leave and could not observe Alex.). Its conclusion was that Alex had problems with off task behavior and making noise. 2 Neither the district court nor the hearing officer found that there was a precise moment during the 2000 01 school year at which Alex's disability began to impede his learning. (ii) at least one regular education teacher of such child (if the child is. (iv) a representative of the local educational agency who (I) is qualified to provide. He was to receive special speech and language training for one hour per week.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sexually assaulted them over a period of time in 1997 through 1999 and that the Administrative Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a risk that such assaults would occur.2 Specifically. Heggenmiller and Davis contend the Administrative Defendants failed to have adequate privacy training and guard/inmate interaction policies and rules in place at the time of their assaults. To have such training and policies in place and (2) the Administrative Defendants' knowledge of prior instances of sexual misconduct by other guards at EMCF. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge. is left for distribution in the consolidated chapter 7 estate of Bristol Terminals. An applica tion for an order authorizing joint administration of the Bristol and Hemingway chapter 11 estates was immediately granted by the bankruptcy court. The Hemingway Bristol chapter 11 proceedings were voluntarily converted to negligence on its part or on the part of its agents. The mortgage unmistakably provides that the sale and mortgage of the Property were
|
|
WILSON HERBERT K. V. PENA, FEDERICO F.
|
|
HORTON V. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to decide whether an employee benefit plan participant is required. To exhaust an administrative claims procedure that was adopted by his plan only after he had already brought an ERISA action to recover benefits. The district court held that the exhaustion of such remedies was a prerequisite to seeking relief in court. We hold that the exhaustion of such remedies is excused under 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503 1(l). A socalled
|
|
KAJARIA IRON V. US
|
|
WILLIAM A. O KEEFE, V. USPS
Argued for respondent.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Principally alleging that they terminated him from his position as Executive Administrator of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania in violation of his constitutional rights and that court personnel unlawfully invaded his privacy when they publicly disclosed documents from domestic proceedings in which he was involved. We will affirm. A committee chaired by Justices James McDermott and Stephen Zappala of the Supreme Court conducted a search to select an Executive Administrator who would have the responsibility of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. The Jefferson County Jail Correctional facility is operated by the Arkansas Department of Corrections. The district court found that although Chelette
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ruling that plaintiffs were required to exhaust California's complaint resolution process before suit. (2) the plaintiffs were not required to exhaust California's complaint resolution procedure and (3) the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs claims for prospective injunctive relief against the state defendants based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. Finding that more than half of the nation's eight million children with disabilities were not receiving appropriate educational services. OF TRUSTEES OF MANHATTAN BEACH USD 7 services as are necessary to permit the child `to benefit' from the instruction
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Coakley was a civilian employee of the Department of the Navy. Civilian employees of the Navy with support functions equivalent to those of deployable military personnel are subject to the same immunization requirements as military personnel. The Navy ordered all crew members of the Pecos to have an HIV test performed by the ship's medical services officer (
|
|
JOHN J. GALLAGHER V. DEPT OF TREASURY
Argued for petitioner.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which was filed on September 18. Challenges the California Board of Prison Terms' determination that he was unsuitable for parole. Redd contends on appeal before this court that his petition was timely filed because AEDPA's statute of limitations did not begin running until January 19. His petition is untimely and must be dismissed. Redd was convicted of murder in California state court and was sentenced to a prison term of seven years to life under California's Indeterminate Sentencing Law.1 On May 5. An inmate with his record should have served less than the two decades he had already spent in prison. Redd filed another habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal.2 That petition was also unsuccessful. That petition too was denied on December 20. Intermediate courts of appeal and superior courts all have original habeas corpus jurisdiction. Although a superior court order denying habeas corpus relief is nonappealable. A denial of a habeas petition within the California Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is not final for 30 days (and therefore is subject to further action during that time).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
While his appeal from the suspension order was pending. Seeking to enjoin the state proceedings on the ground that the Board had failed to preserve evidence to which Plaintiff was constitutionally entitled. Defendants are the Board. 2 which is the administrative body charged with overseeing horse racing in California.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Plan is governed by the Wal Mart Stores.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW John Dishman was Executive Director of the Adams. (4)
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW John Dishman was Executive Director of the Adams. (4)
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is withdrawn. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW John Dishman was Executive Director of the Adams. (4)
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Patrick Gallagher and Angel M. With him on the brief was Carol S. Nathanson were on the brief for intervenors in support of respondents. The agreements are designed to bring the facilities into compliance with the permitting and reporting requirements of three environmental statutes. Petitioners argue that the agreements are rules disguised as enforcement actions. We dismiss the petitions for review because exercises of EPA's enforcement discretion are not reviewable by this court. I. Animal feeding operations (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Schoenrogge was a legal assistant at the Eloy Immigration Court in Eloy. Schoenrogge and that the penalty of removal was an appropriate penalty. Apparently the Schoenrogge did not show that the Agency's action was in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 05 3135 2 DISCUSSION This court affirms a decision of the Board unless it is arbitrary. Schoenrogge was arrested for the incident and subsequently pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct. 2003001084 (Casa Grande Mun. He challenges the Meehans' testimony that he was intoxicated at the time. Which are virtually unreviewable on appeal. Are fully supported by the record. Such determinations are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which prohibits the initiation of an action against the United States under the FTCA unless an administrative claim is first presented to the appropriate federal agency. Although Sayyah submitted a medical malpractice administrative claim to the VA after his cancer was diagnosed. A claim for wrongful death was never presented to the agency after Sayyah died. I. Background The complaint alleges that in September 1998 Sayyah was treated at the Evansville VA clinic by Dr. Sayyah was correctly diagnosed in March 1999 as suffering from Stage III cancer of the esophagus. This claim was denied on November 27. Discussion The FTCA is a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States and imposes liability
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
PA 19106 Attorney for Appellee * This opinion was prepared by the Honorable William D. Rice was so convicted. It is satisfied that the convict will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of such relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Its exercise of this discretion is subject to judicial review. That it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his statutory claim for judicial review of BATF's inability to complete the investigation that is a prerequisite to its action granting a convict's section 925(c) application. The court reasoned that judicial review was unavailable because BATF had not finally denied Rice's application. While we will affirm the district court's decision to dismiss Rice's constitutional claims on their merits. We will reverse its order dismissing his section 925(c) claim and remand the case to the district court so that it can exercise its statutory discretion to decide whether BATF's failure to grant Rice the relief he seeks would be a miscarriage of justice.
|
|
97-1149A -- PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. SKEEN -- 12/22/1998
The liability was not incurred by the bankruptcy estate and did not qualify as an administrative expense under 11 U.S.C.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Died prior to the time the opinion was issued. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 7 Affirmed in part. Senior Circuit Judge: The primary question before us in this appeal is whether a debtor in bankruptcy operating under the aegis of Chapter 11 may. Continue to reap the benefits of its bargain without concern that the non debtor party will be made whole for the debtor's unfulfilled prepetition obligations. All of which are affiliates or subsidiaries of Adventure Resources. The Adventure companies are involved. Among the myriad of Adventure's creditors were six trusts established to provide pension. The 1993 Benefit Plan) were created as the result of NBCWAs collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the UMWA with the Bituminous Coal Operators Association.1 The remaining two trusts (the Combined Benefit Fund and the 1992 Benefit Plan) exist by operation of law. They were established as a result of the enactment of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were Wilma A. Circuit Judge: Appellants are six aliens who challenged as arbitrary and capricious the Secretary of La bor's denial of labor certification applications filed by their employers.1 The district court granted the Secretary's mo tion to dismiss on the ground that the aliens failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and. That their claims were moot. An alien avoids this classification only if the Secretary of Labor determines and certifies to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sanitary
|
|
NICHOLSON V. WORLD BUS. NETWORK
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Nicholson v. The district court concluded on summary judgment that Smith was an administrative employee. One criterion for an employee's falling into the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3720.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Expresses a strong preference for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/98-4230.ma2.html">RICHARDSON V. RENO (12/22/1998, NO. 98-4230)<BR></A><BR>
Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976</P> <P> This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</CENTER> </P> <P> Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0172n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bays argues that the district court erred in finding that disgorgement is mandatory when necessary to effectuate a pro rata distribution of the estate's assets. Because we conclude that such disgorgement is mandatory. Bays was paid a $10. The motion was granted on September 24. The bankruptcy court determined there were five administrative claimants. The estate's assets were insufficient to cover even the administrative claims. Bays's pro rata share was only $973.41. His objections were denied and he was ordered to disgorge by the bankruptcy court. Finding that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516509.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was not the plan administrator. The Benefit Plan At issue in this case is the Long Term Disability Income Plan of the CocaCola Company (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/023273P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Russell argues that there are genuine issues of material fact on each of her claims and that TG Missouri is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. I. Jurisdiction was proper in the District Court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. The following summary of background facts is based upon the District Court's order. TG Missouri is a manufacturer of plastic automotive parts. Russell was employed by TG Missouri on a full time basis from January 3. Her symptoms are triggered by. Russell was working twelve hour shifts. Moran's office to find out whether Russell was only limited to eight hours per day or whether she was also limited to forty hours per week. Blaylock was told by someone in the office (other than Dr. Russell was seen today for a regular visit. She is having trouble with increased symptoms. She reports that she must work very long 12 hour days which is having an adverse effect on her mental status.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/963210P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Magill was an active judge at the time this case was submitted and assumed senior status on April 1. Before the opinion was filed. United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. 3 3 was informed that when [the Panel] needed to select a replacement for Edwin Ailts. [the Panel] should advertise the position in a publication of national circulation to reach all persons who might be interested so [the Panel] could have an open. I assumed at that time that he was referring to the Chief Probation Officer position which would be vacated upon my retirement since I had only recently indicated my intention to retire and I was unaware of any other vacant positions. This was a brief conversation with Judge Wolle and the comment was made by him in passing. Ailts that the Administrative Office was recommending an aggressive effort on the part of the COURT to recruit minorities and females as candidates for the Chief Probation Officer position which was becoming vacant. A biweekly publication of the Probation Division of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that was circulated nationwide to all probation officers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1142.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The following allegations were contained in that complaint: While McGee was housed at the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth. He was subpoenaed to testify in court as a witness for an individual who was a known member of the Aryan Brotherhood (AB). He was allegedly placed in confinement and informed by a prison official that he
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200512/04-1233a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were Brian Wolfman. With him on the brief were Peter D. School buses were receiving adequate training. The findings of the Adequacy Report were distilled into a Final Regulatory Evaluation. The agency Senior Circuit Judge Edwards was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. * 3 agreed to publish a final rule implementing entry level training requirements no later than May 31. School bus industries was inadequate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3257.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Donovan was employed as a Distribution Window Clerk with the United States Postal Service. He was dismissed from duty on September 12. Donovan was placed on enforced leave on September 12. When he was told to go home and was not allowed to return to duty until he was ordered to do so in January 2004. Donovan was placed on enforced leave. Because he was not accorded the required procedural protections. Donovan's absence from work was voluntary. Donovan to submit evidence and argument to show that he was constructively suspended during that time and thus that his appeal was within the Board's jurisdiction. Donovan responded that he had informed the Postal Service
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012135.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Virginia Electric and Power Company (Virginia Power) appeals the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction enforcing an order of the Cable Services Bureau (CSB) issued pursuant to delegated authority.1 Virginia Power contends that: (1) the CSB order is not eligible The Federal Communications Commission. We will refer to the Commission's authority under the Pole Attachment Act and accompanying regulations without regard to whether such authority has been delegated unless such delegation is directly relevant to this case. 1 CAVALIER TELEPHONE v. Cavalier asserts that the district court erred by imposing a limitation on Cavalier's use of alternative methods to attach its equipment to Virginia Power's utility poles that is not found in the CSB order. I. Cavalier is an independent. Virginia Power is an investor owned electric utility delivering power to homes and businesses through a network of approximately one million poles.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3321.html">RAFAEL ZAMOT V. MSPB<BR></A><BR>
For respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Jeffrey Gauger</u> and <u>Michael Carney</u>. Zamot was employed by the United States Postal Service as a Postal Police Officer.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On March 26. Zamot was involved in an altercation with another postal worker in a locker room at work.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Postal Service removed Mr. Thus whether his case was within the Board s appellate jurisdiction.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>While Postal Service employees ordinarily do not fall within the Board s jurisdiction. Zamot requested additional time to gather the requisite evidence that he is a preference eligible veteran.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In accordance with Mr. Zamot s representative stated that he obtained the letter from the Navy with great difficulty and that the Navy had informed him that Naval JAG was consulted and that this letter should suffice for his purpose of Preference Eligibility/Jurisdiction before the US MSPB. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Mr.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2253.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee. This appeal is from a civil action brought against the Postmaster General in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by Roman Martinez. Roman Martinez was honorably discharged from the United States Army in 1981. Initially employed as a labor custodian a job which Roman Martinez alleges was unsuitable because he was unfit to do heavy lifting and carrying he soon became a distribution clerk. A medical examiner for the Postal Service found that Roman Martinez was unable to carry anything over ten pounds. His claim was initially disallowed for lack of supporting medical data. He was found to have a schizophrenic type disorder and was treated with psychotherapy and antipsychotic agents. Affirmed the Postal Service's determination that Roman Martinez's claim was untimely because of his failure to have brought it to the attention of an EEO counselor within the thirty day period. 5 The EEOC thereafter denied a request from Roman Martinez to reopen its decision.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-1149.htm">97-1149 -- BAYLY V. SKEEN -- 12/22/1998<BR></A><BR>
The liability was not incurred by the bankruptcy estate and did not qualify as an administrative expense under 11 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2340.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/953194P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND This is a cautionary tale. The factual record is sparse. Were in St. The Muhammeds were separated and each was taken to be interviewed. Miranda warnings were given. for the Nation of Islam. Which was then seized. Muhammed was asked if she had any cash. $22. Muhammed told the agents that he worked He used Agents found A drug dog was called and alerted She was uncertain as to where her husband had The drug dog alerted to that cash as When asked if the money could have come from drug sales. Which was also seized. For the return of the Muhammeds' property. the attorney's DEA receipts of both seizures were attached. affidavit to the DEA. 990 was mailed. To both the That notice was received by them and explained that to contest The notice also explained how to obtain the forfeiture they needed to submit personally signed claims and a cost bond to the DEA by a date certain. waiver of the cost bond. follow these directions. They amended their complaint to include On November the notice of seizure and to include personal affidavits by each of them asserting that the money in question was lawfully acquired. 3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0398p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that pursuing the administrative review process for one benefit after the insurance company had already rejected his application for a similar (though easier to obtain) benefit would have been futile. Because it indeed would have been futile for Dozier to ask the insurance company to find that he could not perform
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/95-9575.opa.html">NICHOLSON V. WORLD BUS. NETWORK<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Nicholson v. The district court concluded on summary judgment that Smith was an administrative employee. One criterion for an employee's falling into the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5270a.html">CAREER CLGE ASSN V. RILEY RICHARD W.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0206n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the final decision of Defendant Unum Provident Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1556.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was William DeVinney. On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John D. Because substantial evidence supports Commerce's determination that it has in the past consistently liquidated unreviewed entries from an unrelated reseller at the cash deposit rate when the manufacturer has no knowledge that the subject merchandise is ultimately destined for the United States. After determining that certain imported AFBs were being sold below fair value in the United States to the detriment of domestic industry. Presumably all interested parties were satisfied with the previously published cash deposit rates for assessment purposes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414834.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts Mesa is a resident and citizen of Bogota. Dollars
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0081p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bays argues that the district court erred in finding that disgorgement is mandatory when necessary to effectuate a pro rata distribution of the estate's assets. Because we conclude that such disgorgement is mandatory. This decision was originally issued as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-2971_030.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court ultimately concluded that ComEd had met its burden of demonstrating for purposes of summary judgment that the employees were correctly classified. The 55 plaintiffs are employed at five nuclear power plants now operated by Exelon Generation Company. Plaintiffs fall into five different groups: 42 are Work Planners. Three are Lead Work Planners. Four are First Line Supervisors. Three are Supply Analysts. Three are Staff Specialists (two in the Engineering Department and one in the Chemistry Department). This prompted us to ask what the relationship was between Exelon Business Services (obviously not an outside law firm) and ComEd. Whether ComEd was still a proper party in the case. In which they explained that ComEd is still a separate corporate entity. ComEd is the only defendant ever served in this case and it has admitted that it employed the plaintiffs at the time the case began in May 2000. Which is when ComEd became Exelon's subsidiary. That transfer was effective January 1. Which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/98-4230.ma2.html">RICHARDSON V. RENO (12/22/1998, NO. 98-4230)<BR></A><BR>
Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976</P> <P> This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</CENTER> </P> <P> Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1113.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Sparks claims to have been incorrectly labeled a gang member by Lieutenant Foster while at the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility. Sparks learned he was considered a security threat and classified within a Security Threat Group (STG). Sparks was moved to the Sterling Correctional Facility. Sparks claims to have been told by Lieutenant Hoffman that he was considered a leading member of a prison gang called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug03/03-30558-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
OTHER AS YET UNDETERMINED INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE LOUISIANA INSURANCE RATING COMMISSION Defendants Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana Before DUHÉ. 2004 insurance set by the LIRC over a period of several years were confiscatory. constitute an Liberty Mutual argues that without these rates thus in impermissible taking compensation violation of the Fifth Amendment as incorporated by the Fourteenth. 1 The district court dismissed Liberty Mutual's claims sua sponte based on its determinations that Liberty Mutual's claims were not ripe and were precluded from ever ripening. The rates for workers' compensation insurance are set by the LIRC. The latter of which is comprised of consumers who cannot obtain insurance in the voluntary market. Insurers were required to serve the involuntary market as well as the voluntary market. They were confiscatory and thus constituted a taking by the state. Louisiana The panel stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0431p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a black lung benefits case that began nearly twenty five years ago with the death of a coal mining employee named Harold Milliken. The ALJ concluded that Evelyn Milliken was entitled to survivor's benefits. We conclude that the Board's affirmance was not legally erroneous and that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. I. BACKGROUND 3 The only new evidence of any import introduced at a modification hearing was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-7107.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He has been
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></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-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/476927F19950666988256B930005C208/$file/9916129.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0193p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Diane Moon appeals the district court's denial of * This decision was originally issued as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/031268p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an action seeking an injunction against a planned Medicare audit of New Jersey teaching hospitals by the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services. The District Court held that it did not have standing to consider plaintiffs' claims under the Administrative Procedures Act. We will affirm. Plaintiffs contend defendant's planned audit of their billing records would use an improper standard and should be enjoined.1 The Medicare program is the responsibility of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The program is administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Plaintiffs are the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and two corporations associated with it: the Cooper Health System. The claims of all parties are based on the proposed audit of the university's teaching hospitals. 4 the carriers handle the billing and payment. They have initial responsibility for ensuring compliance with the statutes and regulations governing Medicare billing of individually billable services.2 Medicare payments to healthcare providers fall under two categories.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0017p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Appellee United States crossappeals the district court's ruling that its administrative forfeiture notices were constitutionally insufficient. Dusenbery was convicted and incarcerated for possession and distribution of cocaine. Claiming that the forfeited property was his and that the government's forfeiture 1 Nos. 98 4014/4036 United States v. Dusenbery did not claim at that time that the statute of limitations had already run when the proceedings were improper. An evidentiary hearing was held regarding Dusenbery's motion for return of property. These items are not at issue in this appeal. Rule 41(e) provides in pertinent part: A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure or by the deprivation of property may move the district court for the district in which the property was seized for the return of the property on the ground that such person is entitled to lawful possession of the property. Where the Government maintained Dusenbery was incarcerated. The Government also stated that notice of the proposed forfeiture was published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034395p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whose sailboat was destroyed by heavy seas after it was moored at the Virgin Islands National Park. We must decide whether equitable tolling is applicable to save Hedges' claim. Where it was destroyed. Which was manufactured by Environmental Moorings International (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0D4E9A99C3009D088256F69005A1A53/$file/0335847.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Shelby is an inmate in the custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections. Pro se petition contends that: The challenged disciplinary order and resulting retraction of statutory good time credits deprives petitioner of due process of law because: (1) the challenged order is not supported by reliable and sufficient evidence in violation of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DEA2D7F81F74610E88256CCD006116F2/$file/0070724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended to replace the line TROTT.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EAF838C83126F73D88256F930058E338/$file/0335640.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is AMENDED as follows: The final sentence in the first paragraph in section III.B.2. states: Because the Final Environmental Impact Statement must include cumulative effects discussion for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/94-1009.html">REYNOLDS V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1<BR></A><BR>
She was not selected for any of the promotions. She maintains that Defendants discriminated against her because she is white. Refused to promote her even though she was the most qualified applicant for the various positions. Reynolds applied to become a middle school assistant principal.2 Reynolds interviewed for the position and was placed into a pool out of which principalship vacancies would be filled. We presume that Reynolds' reference to a principalship was to the middle school assistant principal position. of Schools. Defendants assert that they chose to leave the position vacant and later eliminate it because of anticipated budget cuts.3 Reynolds claims that they eliminated the position under the pretext of budgetary concerns to keep her from becoming Coordinator once they realized that she was the most qualified applicant for the job.4 Reynolds cites as evidence of pretext the fact that the Bilingual/ESOL department budget increased from $1. Reynolds further highlights that she was the sole white person working in the Bilingual/ESOL Department.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1169.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). He timely appealed and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Have filed amicus briefs. Decide whether the District's policy is consistent with the IDEA. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act The IDEA is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTAwODggdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/02-0088%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is incarcerated in a New York State prison. Sitting by designation. * 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 dismiss the plaintiff's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the special housing unit confinement was too brief to support a due process claim and that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies with respect to the Eighth Amendment claim. We conclude that such complete dismissal is not required. Can survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) despite the fact that his period of confinement was less than 101 days. BACKGROUND Many of the relevant facts underlying this appeal are set forth in our prior opinion in this case. 191. 323 F.3d We repeat them here insofar as Because we think it necessary to explain our resolution of this appeal. the appeal is from the district court's dismissal of Ortiz's complaint. We state the facts as they are alleged in the First Amended Complaint.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/041828P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We affirm. 1 Jurisdiction in the district court was proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction in this court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. As that which was being appealed. We are now satisfied that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Was sufficient to permit review of the district court's order of November 17.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2BD9159A5356B7C488256CF60060CC6E/$file/0235054.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL STEEN. About 84 of which are the subject of this lawsuit. Thereby fraudulently reporting tax deductions and other items to which they were not entitled. Hoyt was convicted of mail fraud. Abelein was. It discovered that the partnership records were unreliable to say the least. It was exceedingly difficult to know who was actually a partner at any given point. The Schedule K 1 in making decisions about who was or who was not a partner. Hoyt himself told agents that he moved loyal partners about at will and treated some people who were no longer contributing as if they had never been partners. This was so that his loyalists would not have tax liabilities arising out of the minor difficulty that the cattle or sheep supposedly owned by some of the partnerships were phantoms. The IRS decided that it was not able to accurately ascertain at the partnership level the identities of those who were the real investors in any given partnership at any given time. Having so cracked the dulcarnon with which it was faced.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1752p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a post trial order of the district court. Runyon's Rule 50(b) motion was then granted on the ground that the plaintiff Ms. We will reverse and remand. The complaint was originally filed against Postmaster General Runyon. Postmaster General Runyon was the only remaining defendant. 2 alleged in her complaint that when she was a postal worker. She was the victim of sexual discrimination. S 1614.105(d) because her administrative complaint was not filed until December 1. Well beyond the 15 day window that complainants are allowed to file their complaints after being notified of their right to do so by an EEO Counselor.2 According to the Postmaster. When the letter was returned unclaimed. Informed Morrison that he was representing Williams and that all correspondence should be directed to Fugee. 1993 was the day that the 15 day filing period 2. 29 C.F.R. Of the appropriate official with whom to file a complaint and of the complainant's duty to assure that the agency is informed immediately if the complainant retains counsel or a representative. 3 was triggered.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1752p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<p>This is an appeal from a post trial order of the district court. Runyon's Rule 50(b) motion was then granted on the ground that the plaintiff Ms. Thereby denying the plaintiff any recovery. <p>We will reverse and remand. <p>I. The complaint was originally filed against Postmaster General Runyon. Postmaster General Runyon was the only remaining defendant. . <center> <p>2</center> <p>alleged in her complaint that when she was a postal worker. She was the victim of sexual discrimination. S 1614.105(d) because her administrative complaint was not filed until December 1. Well beyond the 15 day window that complainants are allowed to file their complaints after being notified of their right to do so by an EEO Counselor.2 <p>According to the Postmaster. When the letter was returned unclaimed. Informed Morrison that he was representing Williams and that all correspondence should be directed to Fugee. 1993 was the day that the 15 day filing period <p> 2. 29 C.F.R. Of the appropriate official with whom to file a complaint and of the complainant's duty to assure that the agency is informed immediately if the complainant retains counsel or a representative. .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/04/992376P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The removal of Nebraska from further HHS was previously known as the Nebraska Department of Heath. The department is referred to as HHS throughout this opinion. 21 supervision of the licensing process and appointment of a third party to exercise supervision. This appeal by Nebraska is from a preliminary injunction issued by the district court2 which enjoined the state parties from continuing with the administrative proceeding related to denial of the license for the disposal facility.3 We affirm. Which was passed as original legislation by each of the states and by Congress. Also pending in this court are appeals by Nebraska. The state selected as the host for a disposal site is required
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1680p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 3733. 2 The district court dismissed Dunleavy's Second Amended Complaint on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the action was based solely on information or allegations that had been publicly disclosed through various newspaper articles. This appeal raises issues which require us to further define the circumstances under which a qui tam action will be deemed to be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/041484P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We affirm. 1 Jurisdiction in the district court was proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction in this court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Parisi was a production material coordinator for Boeing. He was notified that he would be laid off effective January 12. Parisi was 42 years old at the time of the layoff. Parisi specifically mentioned only one incident in which he applied for a position at Boeing and was rejected. Was notified that he did not get the job on January 12. Often losing the position to individuals who are younger and less qualified.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9971F77E66C0452E88256EEF00572E6F/$file/0335640.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Project area is at the headwaters of the Little North Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River. 977 acres of National Forest have been logged since 1960. As a result of A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/96-3025.htm">96-3025 -- MISSION GROUP KANSAS INC. V. RILEY -- 06/01/1998<BR></A><BR>
For profit postsecondary institutions are statutorily barred from participating in Title IV programs unless they derive at least 15% of their gross revenues from sources other than Title IV. <u>See</u> 20 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUxNTEtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5151-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that investment advice fees incurred by a trust are not fully deductible in calculating adjusted gross income for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code under 26 U.S.C. § 67(e)(1). Instead are deductible only to the extent that they exceed two percent of the trust's adjusted gross income pursuant to § 67(a). Because the remaining members of the Panel are in agreement. Circuit Judge: The question presented on this appeal is whether investment advice fees incurred by a trust are fully deductible in calculating adjusted gross income for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E251752820923119882570660056E631/$file/0316766.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
MHC argued that the Individual Defendants are not eligible for rent control under California state law and are. SAN JOSE 11169 Rooker Feldman jurisdiction claims are reviewed de novo. Res judicata claims are also reviewed de novo. Ripeness is a question of law. It is reviewed de novo. Whether a district court had supplemental jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. A district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Whether a claim is barred by a statute of limitations and when a statute of limitations begins to run are reviewed de novo. The facts alleged in a complaint dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are accepted as true. Proposed increases exceeding the calculated amount are subject to administrative review. The maximum annual rent increase is supposed to allow mobilehome park owners a fair and reasonable return on their investment. A fair return is defined as an amount allowing an owner to maintain the same level of income. This system is known as the maintenance of net 11170 MANUFACTURED HOME CMTYS. v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415095.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The jurisdictional issue is whether Brown failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he filed his complaint in the district court fewer than 180 days after he had filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and he allegedly did not seek counseling with an Equal Employment Office counselor within 45 days of the alleged harassment. The issues about the merits of Brown's complaint are whether Brown suffered sexual harassment and retaliation when the score on an evaluation of his job performance was lowered and whether Brown pleaded a claim for retaliation based on his later termination. We conclude that jurisdiction was proper. Brown's remaining claim of retaliation by termination was not pleaded in his complaint. Brown was employed by the IRS as a tax examiner. In which he received a score of 3.67 out of 5 and was rated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1137.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Pine Tree Legal Assistance were on brief for appellees. Provides federal financial assistance to needy families with children who are deprived of parental support through death. States are not required to participate in the AFDC pro gram. 316 (1968). 1The nominal defendants are the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Human Services. Since the State of Maine is the real party in interest. States in turn were required to amend their Title IV A plan. Mined
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/03-5086a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-6008.htm">01-6008 -- CUDJOE V. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.12 -- 07/23/2002<BR></A><BR>
He was evaluated by his teacher and the school counselor. These evaluations and recommendations were recorded in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0840p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An administrative Declaratory Order interpreting the Act are preempted by ERISA. We find the Act and its regulations are not preempted because they confer broad authority that may be implemented in a manner consistent with ERISA. Therefore we will affirm the judgment of the district court striking the Declaratory Order. The Prevailing Wage Act The purpose of the Prevailing Wage Act
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416133.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
M.T.V.'s parents continued to have these concerns and had him privately tested by an independent evaluator. M.T.V. was then diagnosed with a vision impairment. The Team first determined he was eligible to continue receiving speech services based on a reevaluation conducted in February 2002. Explaining M.T.V. was due for his triennial evaluation under the IDEA and his services might no longer be appropriate given his progress. The district court first dismissed the plaintiffs' retaliation claims because they were subject to the IDEA's exhaustion requirement. The plaintiffs had neither exhausted their administrative remedies nor shown such an effort would have been futile. Have not raised those claims on appeal. We agree with the district court that both Appellants' initial and amended complaints are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-3816.html">MANLEY V. DEPT. OF AIR FORCE<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/993807P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Matthew was born in Montana in October. It became apparent over time that his development was impaired. Although specialists were reluctant to diagnose such a young child. They suggested that his impairments were consistent with a type of autism. This course was summarized in a document called an individualized education program (IEP) which noted his developmental disabilities and offered him three half days of school each week and specialized therapy. Matthew began at Parkade Elementary School in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5050.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Tink D. Because the Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that Murakami was not entitled to compensation under the Act. Or fifth column activity committed by Japanese Americans were ever established. Was a United States citizen born and raised in Los Angeles and nearby Terminal Island. He and his family were relocated by the Government to the Manzanar internment camp in the desert near Bishop. Who was also from Los Angeles. pregnant. Arthur Murakami's individual exclusion order was lifted when he was informed that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-3012.html">KING V. MSPB<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5D144B6DA751560988256DAD005B46FE/$file/0157036.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The freedom from administrative segregation that was affected by the denial of due process. We must determine whether the district court improperly granted summary judgment on Serrano's equal protection claim in light of evidence presented as to whether a prison officer's decision to deny the requested witness testimony during his disciplinary hearing was racially motivated. Francis is entitled to qualified immunity as to the due process claim.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0029p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Mona Evans claims that her long term disability (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/99-1061.htm">99-1061 -- PADILLA V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1 IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 12/05/2000<BR></A><BR>
The IDEA's predecessor.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/043600P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Robinette was found to be in default of an offer in compromise. This opinion is filed by the remaining members of the panel pursuant to 8th Circuit Rule 47E. 1 I. Was $989. Robinette also was responsible for a liability of $102. Among these conditions was a promise that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0050n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee affirming an Administrative Law Judge's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043481np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Williamson initiated an action in the District Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he suffered seizures while temporarily confined at SCI Pittsburgh because he was not provided with medication that had been prescribed to treat his epilepsy. Consists of three stages of administrative review.2 An initial grievance must be submitted to a Grievance Coordinator within 15 working days after the events upon which the claims are based. Once the intermediate decision is made. The inmate has 5 working days from the date the decision was received to file a final appeal with the Secretary's Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals. It is undisputed that Williamson failed to follow this procedure. He submitted an initial grievance to the Grievance Coordinator at SCI Pittsburgh complaining that he had suffered two seizures because he was not provided with medication that had been prescribed to treat his epilepsy. Williamson had All citations to DC ADM 804 refer to the version in effect when Williamson was denied his anti seizure medication. 3 2 been transferred back to SCI Houtzdale and was receiving his medication.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-9526.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The alien is required to sign a waiver of his right to contest removal other than through an application for <hr> asylum. 1187(b)(2). Ferry remained in the United States long after the ninety days he was authorized under the VWP had expired. Before a decision was rendered on Ferry's application for adjustment of status. Ferry remained in DHS custody for almost twenty three months before he was deported to Ireland on December 21. We affirm the district court's dismissal because Ferry's claims are moot. (1)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054255np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She argues that the administrative decision finding her able to perform her past relevant work was not based on substantial evidence of record. We will affirm. Wannamaker was 59 years old and working as an administrative assistant at a music company when she allegedly became disabled. Wannamaker claimed that she was unable to work due to pain in her back. Her application for benefits was denied. As was her request for reconsideration. The administrative law judge issued a decision that Wannamaker was not entitled to disability benefits. Wannamaker was diagnosed with a herniated disc at L5 S1. Upon her discharge in July she was able to perform all of her occupational duties and all activities of daily living. Wannamaker was also examined by consultative physicians. Was unable to walk on her toes or stand on her right leg. The grasping strength in her left hand was diminished. As was the motor strength in her left upper extremity. The examining doctor opined that she was able to sit. Tests conducted in October 2001 showed that she still experienced left side carpal tunnel syndrome that was not very prominent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/002722P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs John and Leigh T. are the parents of Robert. The district court held that Robert's parents were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3331.html">KELLY BUTTERBAUGH V. DEPT OF JUSTICE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Robert D. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>James M. Acted permissibly in charging Petitioners' military leave allowance for days on which they were not scheduled to work. That federal employees need take military leave only for those days on which they are required to work. Line height:200%'>Petitioners are full time employees of the Depar
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was J. Of counsel on the brief were Jules Bernstein and Linda Lipsett. With him on the brief were Peter D.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/415240927EA7598F88256CCC005B6A86/$file/0070724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043754np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Suffered cruel and unusual punishment when he was transferred to a housing unit where smoking was permitted. The District Court also noted that McBride's claim for money damages was unexhausted for the alternate reason that he had never requested damages during the administrative process. Which was construed as a discovery request directed to Defendants. That letter was not received by the S.C.I. Which was after McBride filed suit. 3 1 Court also noted that Spruill v. After each motion was granted. We directed the parties to discuss whether the motions to dismiss were improperly converted into motions for summary judgment by the District Court. Was harmless error. We note that pro se litigants have an obligation to present issues for review. Although the briefs filed by pro se litigants are construed broadly. McBride's arguments for our consideration of a conversion issue are unsuccessful.2 We will evaluate whether the District Court otherwise properly granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and whether it appropriately denied McBride's motion for reconsideration.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1211.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent. Smith was convicted of a prison disciplinary offense and. Lost his minimum wage prison job and was reclassified to administrative segregation. 2) treating him differently than other inmates whose disciplinary conviction was expunged. Smith's claims were barred (1) To the extent that Mr. Smith is also asserting a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1313.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. His motion for oral argument is moot. We will not address his several motions and memorandums addressing the merits of his complaint in which he seeks alterations in his prison medical care. Or other correctional facility until suchadministrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1257p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
INTRODUCTION Before us is an appeal by NationsBank of Tennessee (Collateral Trustee) and New Jersey National Bank. Who are collectively referred to in this opinion as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/00-15411.man.html">UNITED STATES V. AM. STATES INS. CO. (5/31/2001, NO. 00-15411)<BR></A><BR>
American States informed the Government of its conclusion that the termination was wrongful. Seeking a declaration that it was not required to pay the excess costs. Which was the same amount requested in the 1992 demand letter. American States moved to dismiss the action on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Holding that American States was bound by the contracting officer's final decision.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3418.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. BACKGROUND Cabone was employed as a mail handler by the United States Postal Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA0MjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0426-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is automatically substituted for former Secretary Thomas Ridge as the respondent in this case. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RICHARD MERRITT. Who is of Puerto Rican ethnicity. Fernandez's Medical Leave of Absence and Return to Work Fernandez was injured on August 5. Fernandez was examined by several doctors who evaluated his ability to return to work. Fernandez was examined by Dr. Fernandez was examined by Dr. Who also concluded that Fernandez was capable of returning to active duty employment without any restrictions. Fernandez was examined by Dr. Stiler opined that Fernandez was considered to have a partial disability and approved his return to work on restricted duty only. He was advised. That no light duty existed for the canine unit and that he was required to provide the Department with a physician's note indicating that he was able to return to full duty. Stiler confirmed that Fernandez was unable to return to full duty employment due to his disc herniation and that his work restrictions should be considered permanent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/95-2968.opa.html">ZIPPERER V. SCH. BD. OF SEMINOLE COUNTY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Zipperer v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Elizabeth Zipperer and her minor son Scott initiated an administrative due process hearing under the IDEA to establish that Scott was disabled and thus entitled to special education services. There is no dispute that the Zipperers were the prevailing party at the administrative hearing.<p> The Zipperers. Because the IDEA is silent regarding the time period for filing an action. The notice of appeal was filed with the district court on July 28. The Zipperers alleged that the seven day delay in the delivery of the notice of appeal was unexpected in view of the normal three day course of delivery. We consider whether the Zipperers' claim for attorneys' fees was barred by a thirty day statute of limitations.<p> A. 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (holding that a timely notice of appeal is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/001151.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an issue on which the Courts of Appeals are divided. We will refer only to the former in the text. 2 not presented to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) should not be reviewed by the district court nor be the basis of a remand to the Commissioner unless the evidence is new and material and there is good cause for not having produced the evidence earlier. The issue is one of first impression for this court. Her claim was denied initially and again on reconsideration. Which was held on September 21. The ALJ found that Matthews was not disabled and denied her claim. Also testified at the hearing and stated there were a significant number of sedentary and unskilled jobs. Concluding that Matthews was not disabled. That Matthews' testimony on the severity of her impairments was not credible inasmuch as she could use public transportation and engage in social activities without much difficulty. That Matthews is unable to per form any of her past relevant work as a teacher's aide or hospital worker. That although she is unable to perform the full range of sedentary work.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F136AD631730FA3288256F89005DC35F/$file/0235547.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Insert footnote 9 to Section II slip op. at 15673. How harmless error review is to be conducted is therefore squarely presented. I believe I should address the issue so that future panels confronted with it will have an expression of each of our views on this question. I cannot agree with Judge Clifton's analysis because he relies on the ALJ's and the district court's findings that the placement made by the procedurally defective IEP team was. Harmless because it was the best placement for M.L. This approach rewards procedural non compliance and is at odds with the Supreme Court's holding that the IDEA seeks to achieve its substantive ends largely through procedural means: [T]he importance Congress attached to [the Act's] procedural safeguards cannot be gainsaid. . . . He appears to have jumped to the substantive second step to resolve the procedural first step. It is my view that loss of an educational opportunity cannot be determined by considering the merits of the placement identified in the IEP.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-9503.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. have not appreciated this key point. That petitioner Brian Turgeau was not entitled to equitable tolling of his untimely filed federal administrative claim because his timelyÄand completely preemptedÄstate complaint asserted a different claim. Because the agency's stated reason for denying equitable tolling is invalid. The case is reversed. Because the agency does not argue that there is any (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> further analysis of petitioner's claim for equitable tolling to be done. Petitioner Filed Suit Against His Former Employer in State Court Intervenor NORDAM is certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an air repair station and manufacturer of aircraft partsÄin other words. NORDAM is a contractor for air carriers. NORDAM fired him because he complained to NORDAM that some of its manufacturing practices were outside the original manufacturer's specifications and violated FAA regulations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B9ED28F4C4A61936882572430060DCB7/$file/0555556.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that Bly Magee had failed to overcome the False Claims Act's jurisdictional bar that precludes private actions based on public disclosure of allegations unless the relator who is bringing the action is an original source of the information. She initially suspected CDR of filing false claims while she was serving as the executive director of Southern California Rehabilitation Services. Bly Magee continued to investigate what she believed was CDR's misappropriation of federal funds. We have affirmed the district court's dismissal of Bly Magee II. While Bly Magee II was pending. Which is the subject of this appeal. PREMO We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district court's final order. Public Disclosure Through Bly Magee II [1] The False Claims Act deprives the district court of jurisdiction over a qui tam action that is based on allegations or transactions previously publicly disclosed. Unless the relator is the original source of the allegations. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/98-2024.man.html">BURCHFIELD V. UNITED STATES (3/2/1999, NO. 98-2024)<BR></A><BR>
Telling his doctors that he disliked their side effects and that he was not interested in regaining sexual function. It is not clear whether Burchfield's doctors informed him that injectable testosterone treatments could help prevent osteoporosis.</P> <P> Beginning as early as 1988. Is at risk of further injury.</P> <P> Pursuant to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). </EM> that osteoporosis was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1113.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. Was on brief. Requires federal courts to dismiss virtually all civil actions pending against a failed financial institution at the time the FDIC is appointed as receiver. The financial institution was declared insolvent while the litigation was pending. 4. The FDIC was appointed as receiver. Once removal was perfected. Contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the creditors' claims unless and until those claims were timely filed with. Our inquiry reduces to a single question: do the federal courts retain subject matter jurisdiction over actions pending against failed financial institutions once the 2Only three of the appeals were actually certified under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) (1988). Are before us in a more problematic posture. We have concluded that the difference in how they arrived on our doorstep need not be addressed. 4 FDIC has been appointed as receiver? That our ensuing discussion applies equally to the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) in those instances where the RTC is appointed as the receiver of a failed financial institution in place of the FDIC.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7213a.html">PARK SOON Y. V. HOWARD UNIV<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3388.html">EDWARD G. LANGER, V. DEPT. OF TREASURY<BR></A><BR>
For respondent.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10505-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-4121.htm">97-4121 -- PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH INC. -- 08/03/1998<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/981932.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That he was denied a fair hearing on the contraband charges. He was placed in disciplinary confinement for several months. Including four days in a cell that was smeared with feces and infested with flies and in which he could not eat. The District Court dismissed Mitchell's complaint sua sponte the day it was filed without requiring service on the defendants. While Mitchell was an inmate in the Drug and Alcohol Unit at the Graterford Correctional Institution in Pennsylvania (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/00-15411.man.html">UNITED STATES V. AM. STATES INS. CO. (5/31/2001, NO. 00-15411)<BR></A><BR>
American States informed the Government of its conclusion that the termination was wrongful. Seeking a declaration that it was not required to pay the excess costs. Which was the same amount requested in the 1992 demand letter. American States moved to dismiss the action on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Holding that American States was bound by the contracting officer's final decision.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/01-5013a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief was Scott R. We conclude that HHS erroneously determined that it was without discretion to permit those expenditures. Which was an individual entitlement program. The amount of a state's TANF grant is based on the amount of the reim bursement paid to the state under AFDC during an historical base period. A state may spend its grant
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/95-2968.opa.html">ZIPPERER V. SCH. BD. OF SEMINOLE COUNTY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Zipperer v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Elizabeth Zipperer and her minor son Scott initiated an administrative due process hearing under the IDEA to establish that Scott was disabled and thus entitled to special education services. There is no dispute that the Zipperers were the prevailing party at the administrative hearing.<p> The Zipperers. Because the IDEA is silent regarding the time period for filing an action. The notice of appeal was filed with the district court on July 28. The Zipperers alleged that the seven day delay in the delivery of the notice of appeal was unexpected in view of the normal three day course of delivery. We consider whether the Zipperers' claim for attorneys' fees was barred by a thirty day statute of limitations.<p> A. 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (holding that a timely notice of appeal is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/973627.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael Malik Allah appeals the District Court's order dismissing Allah's complaint before service on the ground that his claims are barred by the Supreme Court's decision in Sandin v. Including his claim that he was kept in administrative segregation in retaliation for filing civil rights lawsuits. Who was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 1997 alleging that he was being kept in administrative segregation at S.C.I. That while he was kept in administrative segregation he was denied meaningful access to the courts. Allah was transferred from S.C.I. 1997 and was placed in administrative segregation. He was told by the officer in charge that the officer
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1513.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Were on brief. The order appealed from does not fit within the parameters of that doctrine: the EAB proceedings are ongoing. THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/22C449802F9646648825734C0057C343/$file/0535364.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We consider whether an administrative warrant issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4213(a) for the retaking of an alleged parole violator is subject to the oath or affirmation requirement of the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause. We hold it is not and therefore affirm the denial of petitioner's habeas challenge to his detention on an unsworn parole violator warrant. I Petitioner Brent Sherman is a federal inmate currently being held by the Bureau of Prisons at the Federal Detention Center in Sheridan. He was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment for two counts of bank robbery and one year for failure to appear. Because his offenses were committed prior to November 1. Sherman's parole was revoked two years later for possession of a controlled substance. He was paroled again in August 1999 and five years later requested a hearing for early termination under 18 U.S.C. § 4211(c)(1). It is undisputed that the warrant application containing the allegations was unsworn. The following month he filed the underlying habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention on the ground that the warrant was invalid under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by oath or affirmation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/677B99C9B927E47488256AD20057BC53/$file/9917157.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Please see attached Amended Opinion. The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED. 13664 OPINION WARDLAW. The HO's determination would have provided Amanda reimbursement for the cost of the 1996 assessments indicating autism and the cost of an in home program funded by her parents from April 1. We then turn to a question of more significance to the growing number of parents of autistic children for whom early detection and early parental involvement in education is critical to their ability to overcome the disorder: whether the District's failure to give Amanda's parents copies of the evaluations indicating the possibility of autism and the need for further psychiatric evaluations when the District learned of the possible diagnosis violated the procedural requirements of the IDEA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. I. Statutory Background The IDEA provides states with federal funds to help educate children with disabilities if they provide every qualified child with a FAPE that meets the federal statutory requirements.1 Congress enacted the IDEA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/98-9153.man.html">MILLER V. TANNER (11/18/1999, NO. 98-9153)<BR></A><BR>
He was taken to the prison infirmary where appellee Dr. Miller alleged that appellees were indifferent to his medical needs as a paraplegic with a neurogenic bladder. Sent Miller a memorandum stating that his grievance was denied because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-10722-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/98-9153.man.html">MILLER V. TANNER (11/18/1999, NO. 98-9153)<BR></A><BR>
He was taken to the prison infirmary where appellee Dr. Miller alleged that appellees were indifferent to his medical needs as a paraplegic with a neurogenic bladder. Sent Miller a memorandum stating that his grievance was denied because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0715p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Drums and canisters of hazardous waste were found on the premises. Concerned that Conroy's failure to remove the hazardous waste was endangering public health and safety and the environment. The district court held that the DER was entitled to the entire amount it sought. Since the bankruptcy laws were revised in 1978. Debtors have argued that state laws prohibiting the abandonment of hazardous substances are preempted by the literal language of Section 554 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Conroys could not have escaped their obligation to do so by abandoning the hazardous property in question. The costs of this cleanup would have constituted administrative expenses under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A). Since they are a portion of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961431.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No rent was paid on the premises postpetition. Was one of several automobile dealerships in Northern Virginia controlled by John W. The lease was thus rejected by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(4). The debtor's case was converted to Chapter 7. Trustee Hall was appointed to administer the estate. Was pursuing its own§ 506(c) action against Ford Credit. Reynolds was also permitted to surcharge Ford Credit to satisfy its claim.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-10505-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2373.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All parties Institution/Santa listed above are sued in their Fe individual capacities and/or County official capacities. This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <hr> McCONNELL. He was exposed to harmful secondhand smoke and denied access to legal materials in violation of his constitutional rights. Roberts was incarcerated from April 16.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1020.html">NEC CORP. V. THE UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952497P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Special education assessment suggested that S.D. has average to above mathematics skills were below her ability. Describes the specially designed instruction and services that will enable the child to meet those objectives.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/770245B50EEC5EFD88256E5A00707C44/$file/9917157.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The HO's determination would have 10684 provided Amanda reimbursement for the cost of the 1996 assessments indicating autism and the cost of an in home program funded by her parents from April 1. We then turn to a question of more significance to the growing number of parents of autistic children for whom early detection and early parental involvement in education is critical to their ability to overcome the disorder: whether the District's failure to give Amanda's parents copies of the evaluations indicating the possibility of autism and the need for further psychiatric evaluations when the District learned of the possible diagnosis violated the procedural requirements of the IDEA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. Congress enacted the IDEA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-3260.html">WRIGHT, DOUGLAS M. V. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was R. While Wright was talking to his wife. Although there were two in her handwriting. The board found that Wright did not present it to the administrative judge and that it was not material. The board concluded that Anita Wright's two statements did not undermine her credibility because she was justifiably confused at the hearing. 1997 decision that was virtually identical to the one in 1995. The administrative judge held that she was not a credible witness because her testimony differed from Vasquez' and Robinson's and. The board denied Wright's petition for review and he appeals.<p> Discussion<p> We must affirm the board's decision unless it is:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043837p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In this case we are asked to decide when a vacated criminal conviction remains a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1708.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case illustrates the perils facing a small business that does not determine whether it is subject to regulation under 33 U.S.C. § 1321. The spill was largely contained with the help of cleanup experts sent in by the state of Maine. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-10455-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041063p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The Fair Housing Act was designed to provide nationwide fair housing to Argued October 7. Is a valid exercise of congressional power under the Thirteenth Amendment to eliminate badges and incidents of slavery. Kimberly and Kenneth Mitchell are African Americans who attempted to rent an apartment from Ms. The Mitchells were shown two apartment complexes: the racially homogenous T u sc a n y A partme nts buildin g in Pittsburgh. Both complexes are owned by P&R Properties. They were being steered away from the homogenous Tuscany building toward an apartment in the racially mixed Carnegie building.2 The electronic access card given to the Mitchells was subsequently deactivated. PHRC initiated an investigation and determined there was probable cause to credit the Mitchells' allegations. The Mitchells were told that tenants in the Tuscany building might be intimidated by the race and size of Mr. That the Mitchells would be more comfortable in the Carnegie building since some of the tenants in that building were African American.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F31BC7CFC2E61F36882572BA0076FFCD/$file/0256256.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER Rio Tinto's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is granted in part. Are hereby withdrawn. A superseding opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order. Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041540np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(4) filing false disciplinary charges against him that were later dismissed (Count IV defendant Barnes). Oliver is not appealing this order. 2 1
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BED9CDE5317262088256AA7005A910A/$file/9917157.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The HO's determination would have 10684 provided Amanda reimbursement for the cost of the 1996 assessments indicating autism and the cost of an in home program funded by her parents from April 1. We then turn to a question of more significance to the growing number of parents of autistic children for whom early detection and early parental involvement in education is critical to their ability to overcome the disorder: whether the District's failure to give Amanda's parents copies of the evaluations indicating the possibility of autism and the need for further psychiatric evaluations when the District learned of the possible diagnosis violated the procedural requirements of the IDEA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. Congress enacted the IDEA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5099.html">VEREDA, LTDA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendant appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10455-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2E9E3A0DEC35D2088256E5A00707CE4/$file/9917157.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Please see attached Amended Opinion. The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED. 13664 OPINION WARDLAW. The HO's determination would have provided Amanda reimbursement for the cost of the 1996 assessments indicating autism and the cost of an in home program funded by her parents from April 1. We then turn to a question of more significance to the growing number of parents of autistic children for whom early detection and early parental involvement in education is critical to their ability to overcome the disorder: whether the District's failure to give Amanda's parents copies of the evaluations indicating the possibility of autism and the need for further psychiatric evaluations when the District learned of the possible diagnosis violated the procedural requirements of the IDEA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. I. Statutory Background The IDEA provides states with federal funds to help educate children with disabilities if they provide every qualified child with a FAPE that meets the federal statutory requirements.1 Congress enacted the IDEA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3413.html">CAROL BRILEY V. NATIONAL ARCHIVES<BR></A><BR>
On the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Amy E. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep08/03-10722-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep08/03-10505-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep08/03-10455-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/98-2024.man.html">BURCHFIELD V. UNITED STATES (3/2/1999, NO. 98-2024)<BR></A><BR>
Telling his doctors that he disliked their side effects and that he was not interested in regaining sexual function. It is not clear whether Burchfield's doctors informed him that injectable testosterone treatments could help prevent osteoporosis.</P> <P> Beginning as early as 1988. Is at risk of further injury.</P> <P> Pursuant to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). </EM> that osteoporosis was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10722-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1C070B976CB594E988256C4500806640/$file/0017352.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2002 is hereby recalled. 2002 appearing at 285 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2002) is further amended as follows: 1. IT IS SO ORDERED. We consider whether a party may obtain a judgment declaring that a copyright registration owned by another is invalid. Are highly integrated circuits used to control a particular system or process in an electronic product. The operation of microcontrollers is dictated by low SYNTEK SEMICONDUCTOR v. Which are fixed in storage. Microchip again came to believe that Syntek was manufacturing and selling products that infringed Microchip's copyright in the PIC 16C5x microcode. As the Taiwan criminal proceedings were drawing to a close. Syntek filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Microchip's U.S. copyright registration of the PIC 16C5x microcode is invalid because Microchip did not comply with the applicable regulations when registering its program. II [1] Microchip's PIC 16C5x microcode is a computer program. Computer programs are works of authorship entitled to protection under the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 101.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E25209903C0AB77E88256F43005CD04A/$file/0235547.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This critical structural defect in the constitution of the IEP team precludes us from considering whether the IEP developed without the inclusion of at least one regular education teacher was reasonably calculated to enable M.L. to receive a free and appropriate public education (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-7061.html">MCCAY V. BROWN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972108.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. District Judge: Northwestern Security Life Insurance Company (Northwestern) was a North Carolina corporation specializing in life. State insurance insolvency statutes are not preempted by the federal priority statute to the extent that the state statutes afford a higher priority to policyholder claims and claims for administrative expenses than to claims of the United States. 508 U.S. 491. That he was entitled to a refund of the $159. The Internal Revenue Service informed the Commissioner that it would not allow his refund claim on the grounds that the federal income taxes that accrued during liquidation were 1 Specifically. Because no such claims were made during liquidation. Claiming that he was entitled to the refund. Such state statutes were preempted by the federal priority statute. Which provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/96-9526.wpd.html">LONG V. BD. OF GOVERNORS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1748.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cicilline</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. Guez's claim was procedurally deficient. Guez was scheduled to fly on a commercial airline from the John F. Guez was carrying money to pay for a shipment of cocaine that had arrived at JFK from LMMIA on June 24. The first step towards retrieving seized property is to file a sworn claim of ownership with the agency that made the seizure here the DEA. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(A) (2003). Asserting that he was the owner of the $23. Copies of these motions were served on Rodrí. Although it was originally filed with the DEA and had not previously been before the court. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5013a.html">STATE OF ARIZONA, ET AL V. TOMMY THOMPSON<BR></A><BR>
Ar gued the cause for appellees.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D390EBEB4E56813688256C71007CE22F/$file/0135509.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Duong knew his situation was critical. A Lucent employee told Duong that the return of his passport would take one to two weeks.2 The complaint alleges that Lucent never informed Duong that the return could have been expedited in an emergency. The date Duong's doctor had given him for surgery was at hand. 3 alleging that SOS's recommendation that Duong remain in Saudi Arabia was negligent and that. We conclude that summary judgment was proper as to the breach of contract claim against AT&T. Bui is a citizen of Oregon. AT&T is a New York corporation. Lucent and SOS are Delaware corporations. ERISA also does not preempt the claim for negligent medical advice and for negligent delay to the extent that the delay was based on actions taken during the course of medical treatment or consultation. In which ERISA would have preempted nearly everything. AT&T 9 [2] Medical malpractice is one traditional field of state regulation that several circuits have concluded Congress did not intend to preempt. Which made it clear that the goal of such interpretations was to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-3228.html">WALKER V. DEPT.OF THE NAVY<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/962752P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lang is a general insurance agency whose business includes the sale of worker's compensation insurance. Lang is a licensed agent Under the agency Under
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/00-5103a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Jonathan L. With him on the brief were Robert R. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Use of ... force/restraints is authorized in order to bring the inmate into compliance with grooming standards.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-12310.ord.html">TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH. V. U.S. E.P.A.(1/8/2002, NO. 00-12310)<BR></A><BR>
Petitions for review of three orders issued to it by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1451.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Escobar filed a complaint against eighteen prison guards at the Ca¤on City State Penitentiary in Colorado alleging he was repeatedly subjected to excessive force. Adding seven more defendants based on two incidents after he filed the initial complaint. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. R. 32.1. (1) Because Escobar is proceeding pro se. Escobar also alleged he was restricted to filing one grievance per month under Colorado Department of Corrections Administrative Regulation 850 4 and had his legal documents destroyed during repeated cell shake downs by the defendants. Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0496n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Requiring them (among other things) to plead with specificity that they have exhausted administrative avenues for relief. Was diagnosed on April 25. He said that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/96-3032.wpd.html">ARAMBURU V. BOEING CO.<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. (4) discriminatory discharge on the basis of his carpal tunnel syndrome.(2) Boeing and Whitesell contend that Aramburu was discharged for failure to maintain proper attendance. Larry Whitesell was Aramburu's supervisor. Aramburu's employment relationship was governed by a collective bargaining agreement between Boeing and the International Association of (1) Aramburu complains that the district court did not clearly identify the undisputed facts upon which it relied and did not specify which portions of his proffered evidence it was rejecting in considering the summary judgment motion. Many of those objections are not supported by materials which the court may consider or are otherwise inappropriate. The court will make no attempt to specifically explain its resolution of the parties' numerous disputes regarding the uncontroverted facts. It is the task of the district court to determine if the party bearing the burden of proof on an issue at trial has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as identified by the substantive law to warrant sending the issue to the factfinder.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTY0ODAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6480-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Do not constitutionally have the complete freedom of action enjoyed by a private employer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5254a.html">CITYFED FINCL CORP V. OTS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1315.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND This is the second appeal to this court in connection with the Hanleys' 1986 income taxes. Although the complaint is notably lacking in factual detail. The central allegation is that the IRS failed to process a partnership schedule attached to the Hanleys' 1986 tax return. It is barred by the Hanleys' failure to allege. Although there is no evidence in the record whether the IRS sent the Hanleys a notice of deficiency before assessing them $1. It is undisputed that the IRS at some point determined that an additional amount was due for that taxable year and sent the Hanleys a notice of deficiency in the amount of $1. It was after receiving this notice of deficiency in January 1990 for $1. Although the Hanleys contend that this pension is exempt from levy. Coast Guard Medal of Honor roll are exempt from levy. Appellants have never alleged that Keith Hanley has been entered on this honor roll or receives such a special pension. 3. The government argued that such a suit is barred by 26 U.S.C. 6512(a).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DF699EA465EAEEF88825734D007DD35C/$file/0535181.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended in full as follows: OPINION FISHER. Arguing that the ALJ and district court were much too forgiving of the District's failures to provide him the special instructional and support services agreed to in the IEP. The district does not violate the IDEA unless it is shown to have materially failed to implement the child's IEP. All statutory citations are to the IDEA. BAKER SCHOOL DISTRICT 5J 11767 when there is more than a minor discrepancy between the services provided to a disabled child and those required by the IEP. We conclude that none of them was material (with the exception of the math instruction shortfall. Which was later remedied in response to the ALJ's order). We hold that Van Duyn is to that extent entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for the relevant work done at the administrative hearing level though not for Van Duyn's mother. Factual and Procedural Background Factual History Van Duyn is a severely autistic boy who was 13 years old during the 2001 02 school year. Van Duyn was a student at South Baker Elementary School.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/99-9541.htm">99-9541 -- KOWALCZYK V. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 04/06/2001<BR></A><BR>
Informed immigration authorities that he wished to apply for asylum.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTcxNzBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7170_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge: Six students who attend school in the Attica Central School District brought an action against the School District primarily alleging that they have been denied the provision of a free appropriate public education. The School District argues on appeal that the students should have been required to exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing a federal court action. The complaint was styled as a class action. The district court described it as containing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1802.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellees. </SPAN></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1577.html">INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-12310.ord.html">TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH. V. U.S. E.P.A.(1/8/2002, NO. 00-12310)<BR></A><BR>
Petitions for review of three orders issued to it by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov94/94young.html">YOUNG V. JONES YOUNG V. WE HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. AFTER A SHOT WAS FIRED. ONE OF THE INMATES WAS POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED. YOUNG WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE SECOND INMATE. CAPTAIN CARVER TESTIFIED THAT HE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THREE DIFFERENT CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS THAT THEIR SOURCES REVEALED THAT YOUNG WAS THE SECOND INMATE WHO ATTEMPTED TO ESCAPE. A SOURCE INFORMED CAPTAIN CARVER THAT YOUNG WAS ON THE YARD WITH THE IDENTIFIED INMATE JUST PRIOR TO THE ESCAPE ATTEMPT. THE CASE WAS REFERRED BY THE DISTRICT COURT TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE[1] WHO CONDUCTED AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. 2. WHETHER APPELLEES CARVER AND GORUM ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. IV."><BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044412p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Baylson Because we have converted the present appeal into a petition for direct review. We are required to substitute the Attorney General for the respondent (William F. Andrea Patricia Duvall is a native and citizen of Jamaica. Her request was granted. She became a permanent resident in 1993. 3 Her days in this country were not all tourism and romance. She was charged as an alien subject to deportation based on convictions of crimes involving moral turpitude. A hearing was held before an immigration judge on November 16. The sole witness called by the INS was Duvall. She asserted a privilege against selfincrimination under the Fifth Amendment and would neither confirm nor deny any of the allegations in the order to show cause.1 The INS was caught off guard by this maneuver. The document was ruled inadmissible for noncompliance with local rules requiring submission of evidence at least ten days before the hearing. The immigration judge found that there was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov94/94young.html">YOUNG V. JONES YOUNG V. WE HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. AFTER A SHOT WAS FIRED. ONE OF THE INMATES WAS POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED. YOUNG WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE SECOND INMATE. CAPTAIN CARVER TESTIFIED THAT HE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THREE DIFFERENT CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS THAT THEIR SOURCES REVEALED THAT YOUNG WAS THE SECOND INMATE WHO ATTEMPTED TO ESCAPE. A SOURCE INFORMED CAPTAIN CARVER THAT YOUNG WAS ON THE YARD WITH THE IDENTIFIED INMATE JUST PRIOR TO THE ESCAPE ATTEMPT. THE CASE WAS REFERRED BY THE DISTRICT COURT TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE[1] WHO CONDUCTED AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. 2. WHETHER APPELLEES CARVER AND GORUM ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. IV."><BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/921500E7C5A64E0A882571C30048F0C9/$file/0256256.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1362.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Michael Whitington. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Whitington filed a 1983 action asserting his constitutional rights were violated because (1) officials of the Colorado Department of Corrections (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3327.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Veltruski Heck appears to allege that various federal agencies have denied him employment opportunities as reprisals for certain whistleblowing activities in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). States in his informal brief that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-2064.htm">A. BACKUP DOCUMENTATION, MOTIONS, ORDERS, AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS97-2064 -- U.S. V. GONZALES -- 07/28/1998<BR></A><BR>
If there is a right of access. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/00-3305.htm">00-3305 -- U.S. V. ZALAZAR-TORRES -- 10/16/2001<BR></A><BR>
Zalazar was subject to the penalty provisions of subsection 1326(b)(2). Contending the proceeding was fundamentally unfair. We conclude that he has failed to establish that the 1997 INS proceeding was fundamentally unfair. Zalazar was convicted in Harvey County District Court. Zalazar was deported from the United States on December 17. When he was in the custody of the Wichita Police Department on charges of burglary and theft. When Defendant was charged by criminal complaint in federal court with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015411.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
American States informed the Government of its conclusion that the termination was wrongful. Seeking a declaration that it was not required to pay the excess costs. Which was the same amount requested in the 1992 demand letter. American States moved to dismiss the action on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Holding that American States was bound by the contracting officer's final decision. The statute of limitations for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTAzODVfc28ucGRm/04-0385_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0717p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At ultimate issue is the defendant employers' failure to hire the employees engaged at the site from the plaintiff union's hiring hall. The parties have been ceaselessly embroiled in this matter for over eight years. During this time they have appeared before the district court thrice and an arbitrator once. They are now before this Court for the third time. Given what appears to us to be the relatively modest stakes and the fact that the primary point of contention in the case will probably never recur. [fn2] it is unfortunate that their litigation strategies have prevented them from settling. We can only hope that the opinion that follows will edge them toward a swift resolution of their remaining disputes instead of propelling them back to the arbitrator for another round of pugnacious battle. One we will answer in the affirmative. Is whether the district court erred in not applying retrospectively the National Labor Relation Board's decision in John Deklewa & Sons. A host of other questions is also before us.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-4052.htm">97-4052 -- HARLINE V. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION -- 07/22/1998<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-4052a.htm">97-4052A -- HARLINE V. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION -- 07/22/1998<BR></A><BR>
On the brief) for Defendants Appellees. <p> A corrected copy of page one of the opinion is attached for your convenience. <p> Very truly yours. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2368.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. P.A. were on brief. That such negligence was actionable under applicable state law. Was stamping innersoles by means of a marker machine. Her hair was drawn into the vacuum created by the high speed rotation of a drive shaft that delivered power to an adjacent
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6FB5B4BE3192A66D88256EF9007B65AD/$file/0257096.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Relying on evidence that was not part of the administrative record to conclude that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Trust had adopted five year vesting rules applicable to Banuelos. The district court held that Banuelos was not entitled to five year vesting. The Pension Plan The Trust is an express trust established in 1962. The plan is a multi employer defined benefit pension plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Banuelos's right to a pension is governed by the provisions of the pension plan. Banuelos is a retired construction laborer who worked within the area covered by the Trust from 1966 to 1991. Plan One provided for those people who have completed at least 10 years of credited service. The plan sets forth the applicable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061636p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fowler Nash alleged that she was discharged from her position as a legislative assistant to Harhai in violation of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Caucus argued that it was entitled to absolute legislative immunity as Fowler Nash was employed as a legislative assistant. Her firing was therefore necessarily
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5146.html">JOHN MCBRYDE V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0860p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The first issue is whether the plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies before seeking relief from the district court for damages from unauthorized tax collection actions and failure to release a tax lien. The grant of summary judgment on these claims is proper. Plaintiff contends that the levies against his assets were unlawful and therefore the information relating to the levies was impermissibly disclosed. The question is whether it is relevant that the levy is unlawful. We hold that it is not and. That the grant of summary judgment on the disclosure claim is proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 gives us jurisdiction. The district court's grant of summary judgment is subject to plenary review. Summary judgment is appropriate where
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0162p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A majority nonetheless held that the Coal Remining regulations were invalid on grounds not raised by Petitioners or addressed by the EPA. Regulatory Landscape The United States is divided into three major coal producing regions. There have been dramatic changes in the domestic production of coal due to environmental concerns and market demands. The EPA estimates that there are currently over 1.1 million acres of abandoned coal mine lands in the United States. Which have produced over 9. There are two principal pieces of federal legislation governing water pollution caused by coal mines. Was enacted on August 3. The SMCRA is administered by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1058.html">MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC, V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1850p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Virginia administrative center was the plaintiffs'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/0138052.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
MD 21201 Amicus Law Professors in support of Appellant *** Joining Professor Lipson on the brief are Professors Ralph Brubaker. Introduction This is an appeal from an Order of the District Court. The question on appeal is whether the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Hartford Underwriters Ins. While the question in Hartford Underwriters was one of a nontrustee's right unilaterally to circumvent the Code's remedial scheme. Our conclusion is consistent with the received wisdom that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI0MDktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2409-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 BACKGROUND This litigation concerns the cleanup of sites in Westchester County that allegedly were contaminated by operations at Manufactured Gas Plants. Industrial facilities at which gas was produced from coal. Con Ed entered into a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5103a.html">LOUIS JACKSON V. DC<BR></A><BR>
Desmond Hogan argued the cause for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210218.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a code enforcement officer condemns an apartment complex and evicts the tenants without providing the tenants with contemporaneous notice of their right to appeal the condemnation decision. We must then determine whether the tenants' right to contemporaneous notice was established with such clarity at the time of eviction in this case that the chief of the City of Orlando's Code Enforcement Bureau is not entitled to qualified immunity. Threatened to declare the building unfit for human occupancy if the Our recitation of the facts is based primarily on the admitted facts contained in the parties' joint pretrial statement. To the extent that material facts are in dispute. As we must when the issue of qualified immunity is raised in a summary judgment motion. 92526 n.3 (11th Cir. 2000). 2 1 violations were not corrected.2 The owner was informed that the City of Orlando Code Enforcement Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0410p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although it was error to admit the testimony under the standard set forth by this court in Wolfel v. Because it was not relevant to the proof developed by the probative evidence. There was no unfair prejudice to Officer Whitlow. The credibility and veracity of the witness testimony implicating Officer Whitlow was not significantly enhanced by the reference to the possibility of a polygraph exam because the testimony at issue was fully corroborated by the statements given by former Officer Moore. There was considerable evidence. That the assault could not have occurred without. Officer Whitlow being put on notice that something was awry. Rule 61 of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires us on appeal to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0309n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Seiser was employed as a nurse by Borgess Medical Center until 1995. Seiser was covered by a long term disability policy (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415078.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will refer to Walley as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3BFEFB5F59165DF2882572B200549E38/$file/0535181.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All statutory citations are to the IDEA. 3788 VAN DUYN v. Arguing that the ALJ and district court were much too forgiving of the District's failures to provide him the special instructional and support services agreed to in the IEP. The district does not violate the IDEA unless it is shown to have materially failed to implement the child's IEP. We conclude that none of them was material (with the exception of the math instruction shortfall. Which was later remedied in response to the ALJ's order). We hold that Van Duyn is to that extent entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for the relevant work done at the administrative hearing level though not for Van Duyn's mother. Factual and Procedural Background Factual History Van Duyn is a severely autistic boy who was 13 years old during the 2001 02 school year. Van Duyn was a student at South Baker Elementary School. Van's Duyn IEP also included a behavior management plan that was to be implemented full time. His behavior was not accurately recorded on the card.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-1368.htm">03-1368 -- STEELE V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS -- 06/07/2004<BR></A><BR>
This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Victor Steele is appealing the District Court of Colorado's order dismissing his complaint. Which was brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1446p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was barred from proceeding to the final level of administrative review because of his failure to file a timely appeal. We are barred from review of the merits of his § 2241 petition. Moscato's unit at the Allenwood Federal Prison Camp was subjected to a shakedown. Moscato was removed from the Federal Prison Camp and transported a few miles away to administrative segregation at Low Security Correctional Institution (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3399.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Freeman contends that the finding that he committed a willful misrepresentation was unsupported by substantial evidence or. That the penalty of removal was unreasonably harsh. So it is unnecessary to reach the penalty issue. The basis for his removal was a charge of misrepresentation related to a forearm/wrist tendonitis condition. 2003 the Office of Workers Compensation Programs (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/003625.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lapid's primary contentions on appeal are that: (1) because the Board failed to engage in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3003.html">MICHAEL J. BROWN V. DEPT. OF THE NAVY<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Mark D. With her on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel was <u>Maj. Brown was removed from his civilian position with the Marine Corps. That the penalty of removal was unjustified. Brown was removed from his position based on the charge that he had engaged in ". Brown while the major was deployed overseas.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-5073a.html">IMS PC V. ALVAREZ AIDA<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-3010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Defendant Appellee is the Board of Education of Hamilton County. Hamilton County Board of Education Page 2 appropriate public education
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Kimberly Carey Williams. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in No. 04 5315. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Congressman Henry J. With her on the briefs was Toby R. With him on the brief were Douglas B. I. No. 04 5315 is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging that the Office of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson discriminated against Beverly A. No. 045335 is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging that the Office of Senator Mark Dayton discriminated against Brad Hanson because of a perceived disability and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. 4 The Office of Representative Johnson and the Office of Senator Dayton (collectively. The
|
|
CHEMICAL WEAPONS WORKING GROUP, INC. V. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF THE ARMY
Which is currently located at Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean and at eight different sites in the continental United States. Operational chemical weapons incineration plant on Johnston Island that was designed to serve as the prototype for incinerators at other stockpile sites such as Tooele. The Secretary of Defense certified to Congress that testing at Johnston Atoll was complete. Was engaged by the Army to monitor. The National Research Council's Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program (Stockpile Committee) was also chartered to monitor the Army's testing at Johnston Atoll and to review the test results reported by the MITRE Corporation. None were
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief was Captain Andrew M. Of counsel was Virginia G. What must a plaintiff establish regarding the existence of a money mandating law source in order for the Court of Federal Claims to have subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the Tucker Act? 1 Second. Is withdrawn. What are the consequences of a failure to prove the elements of the cause of action because the facts of the case do not bring it within the alleged source? Even assuming the cause of action is otherwise established. Are there matters that are nonjusticiable because of their unique military implications? Filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that while he was on active duty he should have been found unfit for continued service because of a physical disability. Therefore under 10 U.S.C. § 1201 he should have been retired for disability. The matter was exclusively one for military determination. Appeal was timely taken. In light of the statutes on which the cause was based and the facts alleged.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who are officials within the United States government responsible for approving the timber sale. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Darroch Eagle timber sale is proposed to occur on 226 acres of the Gallatin National Forest in Montana. The proposed sale is part of a larger. Is one of approximately twelve sales earmarked to provide receipts for the land exchange. All are slated to occur within the Gallatin National Forest. The Gallatin National Forest is managed in accordance with the Gallatin National Forest Plan (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because it appears from the record and from our review of the applicable law that Decosimo improperly sought compensation for accounting work that was not reasonable and necessary to the maintenance of the bankruptcy estate of the debtor. The Parties BACKGROUND The factual setting for this dispute is a bit complicated. Appellant Decosimo is an accounting firm hired by Das A. It is Decosimo's work for Borden and the eighteen other related entities that is the basis of this dispute. The other entities are Turtle Lake. Greentree's bankruptcy case was filed in New Orleans. The appellees are Ed Lee McMillan. McMillan is a secured creditor of the Company and Borden. McMillan is obligated to pay the allowed administrative expenses necessary to wind up the Company's bankruptcy case.1 2. Was a guarantor of $3. First United Bank was a $4. Its security was the partnership interests and distributions. McMillan agreed to have his cash collateral applied to the administrative expenses necessary to the preservation of the Company's estate. 3 1 to the entry of an order of relief under Chapter 7. 2 On July 12.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief was Captain Andrew M. Of counsel was Virginia G. What must a plaintiff establish regarding the existence of a money mandating law source in order for the Court of Federal Claims to have subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the Tucker Act? 1 Second. Is withdrawn. What are the consequences of a failure to prove the elements of the cause of action because the facts of the case do not bring it within the alleged source? Even assuming the cause of action is otherwise established. Are there matters that are nonjusticiable because of their unique military implications? Filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that while he was on active duty he should have been found unfit for continued service because of a physical disability. Therefore under 10 U.S.C. § 1201 he should have been retired for disability. The matter was exclusively one for military determination. Appeal was timely taken. In light of the statutes on which the cause was based and the facts alleged.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Larry I. With him on the brief were Peter D. The FAA's preemption of OSHA's regulatory authority extends
|
|
ACTION FOR CHILDS TV V. FCC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Immigration and Naturalization Service was abolished. Its immigration enforcement function was transferred to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the newly created Department of Homeland Security. His petition alleged that he was entitled to immediate release because § 1226(c)'s mandatory detention requirement was unconstitutional as applied to him. Gonzalez is a native and citizen of El Salvador. Gonzalez was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance. Was sentenced to two years of 1 (...continued) avoid confusion. Many of the immigration regulations at issue in this case recently were reclassified. Gonzalez was subject to mandatory detention pending removal proceedings under § 1226(c) because he was removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony and of a state drug offense. Bond was not available to Mr. He 2 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) provides:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is a whistleblower action brought by Adrienne Anderson (Anderson) against Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (Metro) pursuant to various environmental statutes which prohibit discrimination against
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. Background Hix is a Tennessee prisoner presently incarcerated at the Riverbend Maximum Security The Honorable Harold A. The Turney Center Industrial Prison and Farm (
|
|
MICHAEL A. GUISE V. DEPT OF JUSTICE
Argued for petitioner. On the brief was Marc F. Argued for respondent. With her on the brief were Robert D. Of counsel was Natalie R. Citing five charges. The charges were: (1) providing pr
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The answer to that question is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Before EBEL. I. Background Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm. The circumstances giving rise to Ramos' complaint occurred while he was confined at the Federal Detention Center (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Plan is subject to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because it appears from the record and from our review of the applicable law that Decosimo improperly sought compensation for accounting work that was not reasonable and necessary to the maintenance of the bankruptcy estate of the debtor. The Parties The factual setting for this dispute is a bit complicated. Appellant Decosimo is an accounting firm hired by Das A. It is Decosimo's work for Borden and the eighteen other related entities that is the basis of this dispute. The other entities are Turtle Lake. Greentree's bankruptcy case was filed in New Orleans. The appellees are Ed Lee McMillan. McMillan is a secured creditor of the Company and Borden. McMillan is obligated to pay the allowed administrative expenses necessary to wind up the Company's bankruptcy case.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A. Background Sommatino was a female civilian employee of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. These fears existed both inside the workplace and outside the workplace when plaintiff was alone.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: Cover sheet. Powers were on brief for appellant. Sharton and Segal & Feinberg were on brief for appellee. Clarke was sexually harassed. Was barred for failure to exhaust mandatory administrative remedies before the Massachu setts Commission Against Discrimination (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. Buchanan began working as a computer programmer for Progressive Casualty Insurance Company in September 1996 and was a participant under Progressive's Managed Disability Benefits Plan. Which was administered by Aetna. A participant was eligible to receive disability benefits after a period of 24 months only if he was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for further proceedings. Two PRPs are relevant to this appeal: Ruetgers. Whom EPA alleges is liable under S 107(a)(1) of CERCLA. Whom EPA alleges is liable under S 107(a)(3) for
|
|
R & W FLAMMANN GMBH V. U.S.
Argued for defendant appellant. On the brief were David M. Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were LTC Douglas K. Sub
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who was a member of the panel. This case presents the question of whether a change in a rule governing the adjudication of social security disability benefits claims that is applied as of its effective date to all pending cases has an impermissibly retroactive effect. Have their primary effect on claimants' applications when the claimants appear before the agency to have their claims decided on the merits. The change in the rule is thus not impermissibly retroactive. When Combs' claim was administratively adjudicated. It was not impermissibly retroactive in its effect. The district court correctly concluded that the Agency's determination in this case is supported by substantial evidence. The five steps are as follows: In step one. The SSA identifies claimants who
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Of counsel on the brief was Brian C. With her on the brief were Peter D. This is a consolidated appeal from two decisions of the Court of Federal Claims. Because the RAC is an agent of the United States. BACKGROUND I At the heart of this case is the administration of the AMAA. The AMAA was originally enacted during the Depression. Producers the principal purposes of which are to raise the price of agricultural products and to establish an orderly system for marketing them.
|
|
PESQUERA MARES AUSTRALES LTDA V. U.S.
Argued for plaintiff appellant.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Dissent by Judge Bea *Michael Chertoff is substituted for his predecessor. Plaintiffs allege that discriminatory acts began after Border Patrol Agent Rowdy Adams (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Carolyn F. With her on the brief were Robert J. Replacement of educational services the child should have received in the first place. Pointing out that neither reasoning nor evidence supported this hour per day calculation and insisting that hour per hour relief was instead the child's due. They also challenge the officer's decision to allow the child's
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
2 alleging that the individual education program (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the district court's order as to its conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the second lawsuit and over W.W.'s counterclaim in the first. Will vacate the district court's order to the extent that it rejected jurisdiction over W.W.'s defenses to liability in W.W.'s petition to open judgment. This commitment was valid until October 30. The Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision found that Bell was likely to incur losses as a result of unsafe and unsound practices and appointed the RTC its conservator.[fn2] As a result. We will refer to this case as the removed case. The letter stated: As you are aware. . . . the Motion to Open Judgment that is presently pending. Given the fact that RTC is in receipt of these claims. No further filings are required by my client in order to permit RTC to determine these claims pursuant to 12 U.S.C. If this assumption is incorrect. I will assume that the presentation of the claims of my client in the Motion to Open Judgment are sufficient to permit the RTC to administratively determine such claims.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which was a Medicare provider operating under fiscal intermediary Blue Cross of California. I. Because this case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Among the services covered under Medicare are home health services. Blue Cross of California is such a fiscal intermediary. Gary and Verlene Kaiser (along with the other individual plaintiffs in this lawsuit1) were shareholders of Community Home Health (CHH). Since almost all of its patients were Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries. CHH was highly dependent on the payments it received from the government through Blue Cross of California. The government was its primary source of revenue. Were made in installments based on estimates of CHH's volume of business. These regulations were issued on January 2 and March 31. CHH was notified that its ERP request was denied and told that 100% of its future Medicare payments would be withheld until the entire overpayment was recouped. This recoupment was proposed without issuance of a Notice of Program Reimbursement (NPR).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Jack was a patent examiner with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Howard Zwagil was employed as a police officer with the Federal Protective Service. He was removed from his position based on two charges: (1) deliberate refusal to carry out assigned duties where the safety of persons and/or property is involved. Zwagil was responsible for patrolling and inspecting buildings occupied by federal employees and agencies. He was suspended for five days for failing to follow supervisory instructions to visit all buildings and offices in accordance with governing orders. Zwagil was again suspended for failing to follow required patrol procedures. Included among those standards was the requirement that Mr. Is a gross violation of [his] sworn duty. Could have a serious impact on the protection of people and property. The notice concluded that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A. Background Sommatino was a female civilian employee of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. These fears existed both inside the workplace and outside the workplace when plaintiff was alone.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Belluardo and Middleton contend that they are participants in Cox Enterprises' pension plan and are entitled to benefits under the plan. They claim they are entitled to amounts that Dayton Newspapers should have paid the federal and state governments on their behalf as Social Security and Medicare taxes. Belluardo and Middleton were newspaper carriers for Dayton Newspapers. That Dayton Newspapers had misclassified them as independent contractors when they were actually common law employees. The defendants are Dayton Newspapers. Holding that the plaintiffs were independent contractors because they had the right to control the means of selling the papers. Observing that although it agreed that plaintiffs were independent contractors. The real issue before it was whether the plaintiffs were permitted to buy and sell the newspapers. So there was no misrepresentation by Dayton Newspapers. While their state suit was pending. Pension Plan contending that they were covered employees entitled to benefits under the pension plan.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The case compels us to revisit the use of the medical vocational guidelines in the regulations 2 promulgated under the Social Security Act to establish that there are jobs in the national economy that a claimant can perform when the claimant has both exertional and nonexertional impairments. At least one of which (left eye blindness) is a nonexertional impairment under the regulations. We will reverse the order of the District Court and remand the case with instructions to return the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. This work was physically strenuous. During his recovery Sykes was unable to work for nine months. The final blow to Sykes's employment as a tractor trailer operator came when a bungee cord snapped as he was securing metal to his truck and ruptured the globe of his left eye. The ALJ concluded that Sykes's depression was not severe. He also concluded that Sykes was not disabled because there was other work in the national 4 economy that Sykes could perform. He argued that the ALJ erred in relying exclusively on the grids in assessing whether there were jobs in the national economy that Sykes could perform when his impairments were both exertional and nonexertional.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Coyle was the Chief Financial Officer for Health Corporation of America (HCA) from December 1986 through October 1990. Was in the business of designing. HCA was awarded three contracts by the United Paper Convertors Local 286 Welfare Trust Fund to administer plans providing health care benefits to members of the Paper Convertors Local 286. These are employee benefit plans subject to Title I. The duration of these particular contracts is unclear from the record although it appears that the contracts were renewed prior to their eventual termination in 1990. The companies will be referred to collectively as HCA. Which were calculated at a fixed rate per covered employee per month. All premium payments not disbursed to participating physicians or laboratories or retained as administrative costs were to be returned to the Fund. There was no similar provision for refund of surplus premiums in the Pennsylvania dental contract although the contracts appear to have functioned similarly in all respects. There was no refund of any premiums under any of the contracts.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: A perceptive governor once noted:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Ernesto Lira was for several years placed in administrative segregation. Because prison officials determined that he was affiliated with a prison gang and posed a threat to prison safety. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Lira is a former inmate of the California corrections system. Where he was immediately
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Participants in an employee pension plan have appealed the entry of summary judgment against them on their discrimination claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Save Our Valley argues that the project will have the effect of discriminating against Rainier Valley residents based on race in violation of a Department of Transportation regulation. The primary question before us is whether that Department of Transportation regulation creates an individual federal right that can be enforced under the Civil Rights Act. I The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 3 the spelling of counsel's name is corrected to read
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The District Court's order was a final and appealable order which Ahmed failed to timely appeal. As will be developed hereafter. We are accordingly without jurisdiction to rule on the issues decided in the June 26 order. We are not under a similar limitation with respect to consideration of the new issues decided in the February 13 order. We express our appreciation to counsel for the appellant who was appointed in the District Court to represent Ahmed. Who was pro se. Counsel is associated with the law firm of Schnader. Whose attorneys have consistently volunteered to represent pro se inmates in appeals at the request of this court. While he was incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy.2 Following this incident. The misconduct charge was filed pursuant to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' Inmate Disciplinary and Restricted Housing Procedures. After Ahmed's cell door was accidently opened. Ahmed was confined to his cell. He was found guilty. The facts of this dispute are set forth fully in the District Court's opinion reported as Ahmed v.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plumb & Murray were on brief. Although we disagree with the district court's determination that the Verhoevens' motion was moot. The
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because we conclude that the district court erred in finding that the Commissioner of Social Security's position was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
When a person is arrested in Illinois. He or she is arraigned. Illinois sheriffs are entitled to charge detainees an administrative fee for the privilege of posting a 10 percent bond with the sheriff (rather than. The fee is $1. The present appeal is a sequel to an earlier one we heard. (2) that there was no standing bar to the proposed class actions against DuPage and Kane Counties. For the reason that the bond fee is not the same throughout the state. The court found that a statewide class action was not warranted because of lack of typicality. Plaintiffs have read too much into our earlier opinion. Our review is of course de novo. Our review of the court's decision to deny class certification is for abuse of discretion. As the background facts in this case are uncontested. A We first take up the 12 counts that were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because there is some duplication of theory among those counts. We have grouped them here into five different categories. 1.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because it appears from the record and from our review of the applicable law that Decosimo improperly sought compensation for accounting work that was not reasonable and necessary to the maintenance of the bankruptcy estate of the debtor. The Parties The factual setting for this dispute is a bit complicated. Appellant Decosimo is an accounting firm hired by Das A. It is Decosimo's work for Borden and the eighteen other related entities that is the basis of this dispute. The other entities are Turtle Lake. Greentree's bankruptcy case was filed in New Orleans. The appellees are Ed Lee McMillan. McMillan is a secured creditor of the Company and Borden. McMillan is obligated to pay the allowed administrative expenses necessary to wind up the Company's bankruptcy case.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because it appears from the record and from our review of the applicable law that Decosimo improperly sought compensation for accounting work that was not reasonable and necessary to the maintenance of the bankruptcy estate of the debtor. The Parties The factual setting for this dispute is a bit complicated. Appellant Decosimo is an accounting firm hired by Das A. It is Decosimo's work for Borden and the eighteen other related entities that is the basis of this dispute. The other entities are Turtle Lake. Greentree's bankruptcy case was filed in New Orleans. The appellees are Ed Lee McMillan. McMillan is a secured creditor of the Company and Borden. McMillan is obligated to pay the allowed administrative expenses necessary to wind up the Company's bankruptcy case.1 Initially. Was a guarantor of $3. First United Bank was a $4. Its security was the partnership interests and distributions. McMillan agreed to have his cash collateral applied to the 1 2. The Company and Borden were general partners of approximately 40 limited partnerships which operated various apartment complexes throughout the southeast.3 On October 8.
|
|
HINSON V. CLINCH COUNTY BD. OF EDUC. (10/25/2000, NO. 99-13345)
Georgia who was transferred to a teaching position. Hinson was the principal of Clinch County High School for four years. She was the first female high school principal hired in Clinch County. Hinson's troubles with the Clinch County Board of Education (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Although both of these grounds were inapposite. The district court's dismissal is therefore AFFIRMED. Is a tract of land owned by the state and maintained by Eastern Kentucky University as a wildlife refuge and research facility. The Woods are designated a National Natural Landmark as
|
|
HINSON V. CLINCH COUNTY BD. OF EDUC. (10/25/2000, NO. 99-13345)
Georgia who was transferred to a teaching position. Hinson was the principal of Clinch County High School for four years. She was the first female high school principal hired in Clinch County. Hinson's troubles with the Clinch County Board of Education (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Calderon collaterally attacked the validity of his deportation order under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) on the ground that he was not accorded due process in his deportation hearing. Holding that the deportation order was not a valid element of the reentry charge. The 1326(d)(1) requirement of exhaustion of all available administrative remedies. 1 We do so because Calderon's waiver of administrative review was not knowing and intelligent circumstances that this Court has held may excuse a defendant from satisfying 1326(d)(1). 732 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that this Court can raise proce dural default issues sua sponte even when the Government has waived the argument by failing to raise it below). 1 2 BACKGROUND The following statement of facts is drawn principally from the District Court's Memorandum and Order of January 9. He was sentenced to 3 years probation with the condition that he serve 180 days in prison. Calderon was convicted in a New Jersey Municipal Court of criminal mischief and assault by automobile and sentenced to imprisonment for 30 days.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Petitioner is a pro se litigant who filed for damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983. For which he was awarded workers' compensation benefits in December 1990. The claim was closed in 1992. Various administrative law judges who were involved in Petitioner's underlying workers' compensation proceeding. The magistrate judge explained that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The central issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of AEP based on its conclusion that Plaintiff's position as an environmental specialist at AEP is properly classified as exempt under the administrative exemption of the FLSA. Schaefer is employed. Schaefer is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Markopoulos were on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellee McCabe. Zinger's apartment was located. 2 [hereinafter:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
2002 appearing at 285 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2002) is amended as follows: At 285 F.3d at 864. If application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is limited to an issue in the pending action. The question of whether a party is
|
|
LACHANCE JANICE V. DEVALL LARRY
With her on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief were Lorraine Lewis. With her on the brief were Mary L. The Board does not have such independent authority to set penalties. The case is remanded to the Board. Accompanied him as part of her duties to look after officers' property while workers are present. Devall was merely waiting with reasonable diligence for the penetrating oil to take effect. Nevertheless reviewed the penalty under a standard articulated by the administrative judge as follows: [W]hile the agency's choice of penalty is a matter primarily committed to an agency's discretion. When some of the charges relied on by the agency are not sustained. The same deference is not afforded to an agency's selection of penalty. Chairman Erdreich disagreed with the administrative judge's less deferential standard for reviewing agency penalty determinations when fewer than all of an agency's charges against an employee are sustained. Chairman Erdreich stated that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Paul N. Of counsel was John H. She challenged the reduction by appealing to the Board and requesting that the Board adjudicate her claim that she should not have been required to pay the back premiums. She was removed from her position because the agency determined that she was unable to perform her duties for medical reasons. Her appeal was unsuccessful. OPM reviewed her application and determined that she had been eligible for immediate retirement in January 1991 when she was terminated. Because at that time she was 63 years old and had completed 16 years of service. Miller was entitled to a retirement annuity retroactive to January 6. The day after her employment was terminated. Miller was entitled to a retroactive annuity payment. OPM stated that it was required to
|
|
98-8015 -- TRUE V. U.S. -- 09/09/1999
Sharing equal minority interests in the ownership and operation of the businesses.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is withdrawn. We reached the conclusion that we were without jurisdiction to address these issues because the certified administrative record on appeal did not indicate that Silva Calderon had raised them in a brief to the Board of Immigration Appeals (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Although the case was brought mainly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City was required to reimburse Pulaski for certain expenses in operating the incinerator. The WDSA's original term was fifteen years. For the first eleven years the WDSA was in effect. Community opposition was mounting against the operation of any incinerator whether retrofitted or new at the 3 Pulaski site. If it was certified by the Director of Public Works. Replacement or expansion is necessary to serve the public interest in the efficient. Seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that the Moratorium was preempted by state law and (2) damages for the City's alleged breach of the WDSA. The Director certified to the City Council that a replacement incinerator at the Pulaski site was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The administrative action was closed in 2002. Asserting that she was the prevailing party in the administrative proceedings that occurred between 1996 and 2002.2 The district court held that plaintiff prevailed in the proceedings that occurred in 2000 and 2002 only. The district court issued a supplemental memorandum holding that plaintiff is entitled to $2. This statute was amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Is also a named plaintiff in this action. Maria C. was diagnosed with dyslexia. She was enrolled in a special education program. Another due process hearing was convened after Maria C.'s parents alleged that the School District was failing to adhere to her IEP. Another IEP meeting was held in October 2000. Another IEP meeting was held. 160) Dissatisfied with the educational services Maria C. was receiving. Insisted that the administrative action was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Even though there were multiple sellers and suppliers of the produce. As a matter of convenience we hereinafter will refer to one of the plaintiffs. We will affirm the district court's order. Which now is defunct. Formerly was engaged in the business of buying produce from various sellers and suppliers for ultimate resale. Pacific claimed that it was the beneficiary of a statutory trust under PACA. From which it was entitled to recover payment for the produce. 138 (3d Cir. 2000) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the District Court's decision. 3 I. The factual background of this case is one that is becoming familiar in the many district courts that have faced challenges by court security officers (
|
|
99-3401 -- MILLER V. MENGHINI -- 05/18/2000
Miller's complaint is governed by section 1997e(a) as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
In this case we are required to evaluate whether a party suing under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Is required to exhaust administrative remedies provided in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Whether suit under the Rehabilitation Act with prior exhaustion of remedies is the exclusive means by which a plaintiff may raise claims against federal agencies relating to handicap discrimination. Concluding that the answer to both of these questions is yes. We will affirm the district court in most respects. Spence was notified by the DLA that he had
|
|
GRAYSON V. K MART CORP.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Grayson v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The plaintiffs in the <i>Grayson</i> and <i>Helton</i> actions (together
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/00-16138.opn.html">ALABAMA POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF ENERGY (9/24/2002, NO. 00-16138)<BR></A><BR>
An offset against future payments that Exelon (like all other utilities that produce nuclear waste) is obligated to pay into</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1981.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gelpi & Gotay and Ralph Diller were on brief for appellant. *Of the Second Circuit. Sanchez offered no defense in response to SMA's motion and was apparently unrepresented. He was actively pursuing an administrative remedy against SMA. While SMA's federal cause of action was pending. Asking that the complaint be dismissed on 3 3 the grounds that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction and that an action adjudicating the same issues was already pending in federal district court. The Commissioner held an administrative hearing at which evidence was presented. Concluding that the Commissioner did have jurisdiction and finding the doctrine of res judicata inapplicable. Res judicata Appellant SMA devotes a substantial portion of its brief to the argument that the federal court's original judgment constituted a final judgment with res judicata effect even though it was a default judgment. That proposition is correct. SMA argues that the Commissioner therefore erred in finding that res judicata did not apply and that the district court should not have deferred to the Commissioner's judgment. 5 5 The flaw in this argument is that the district court did not affirm the Commissioner's conclusion regarding res judicata as an appellate court might affirm a ruling of a lower court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3465020EB5EB70C088257138005E7490/$file/0415097.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We dismiss the petitions for lack of jurisdiction because they were untimely filed without reasonable grounds for delay. BACKGROUND Jan's and Americopters are not related by common ownership. Their petitions and appeals have been consolidated before us. I. JAN'S AND THE ZEIGLER EMAIL Jan's owns a de Havilland Caribou DCH 4A (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1107p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court based its holding on the Providers' claim that the Pennsylvania statute is preempted by the Hyde Amendment. We conclude that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is owed deference regarding her interpretation of the Hyde Amendment mandates. Because the Secretary has determined that reporting requirements are permissible under the Medicaid Act. Because the second physician certification requirement pursuant to § 3215(c) is contrary to a federal regulation. It is also invalid to the extent that it goes beyond the scope of that regulation. The purpose of the Medicaid program is to help provide medical treatment for low income people. Establishment of a Medicaid program is voluntary on the part of each state. While states are not obligated to participate in the Medicaid program. Each state that chooses to do so is required to develop its own state plan which must be approved by the Secretary. Certain categories of medical care are mandatory. While other categories of care are optional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C7B580636FCD979E88256D9D0069ED8D/$file/0171827.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is ordered amended. The Clerk is instructed to file the amended opinion. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and an active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for panel or en banc rehearing will be entertained. 13474 VASQUEZ LOPEZ v. Innocent
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1526p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who filed a Title VII action alleging that he was fired from the Navy in retaliation for his previous charges of racial discrimination. These complaints were consolidated and. Robinson's request for reconsideration was denied and the EEO issued a letter on May 4. Robinson was absent from his job without authorization for a long period beginning on November 27. He was instructed on January 5. 1990 to contact his employee relation specialist to explain the reasons for his prolonged absence and was told that his failure to do so by January 12. Robinson brought this suit in district court claiming that he was fired in retaliation for the previous charges of racial discrimination. Among the evidence relevant to the district court's ultimate ruling was Robinson's testimony that he talked to an EEO counselor over the telephone. Who he thought was Shirley Brown. Who told him that he did not have to file a complaint. He did not have to file another separate complaint. Six months after he was terminated. Brown and Pusch both testified that they would never have advised a complainant not to file a complaint.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/986024.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellants were members of the Union while employed by the Times. Most counts were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the appellants' failure to exhaust administrative remedies or to their lateness infiling charges. The male appellants' sex discrimination claims were dismissed for lack of standing to sue under Title VII and NJLAD. We conclude that the Amended Complaint should not have been dismissed in its entirety. We will reverse. We do so based on our determination that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-9257.opa.html">GRAYSON V. K MART CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Grayson v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The plaintiffs in the <i>Grayson</i> and <i>Helton</i> actions (together
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july96/95-6130.wpd.html">JONES V. RUNYON<BR></A><BR>
Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5055.html">DEL-RIO DRILLING V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/022912P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cornish learned that the adulteration finding was based upon Department of Transportation (DOT) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memoranda issued to drug testing laboratories and medical review officers (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/92-8665.opa.html">IRWIN V. HAWK<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Irwin v. <i>et seq.</i> For the reasons that follow we AFFIRM with the modification that the dismissal is without prejudice to Irwin's reassertion of his <i>Bivens</i> claims<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1552p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brought suit against Scott Paper Company claiming that he was a victim of unlawful racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Scott contends that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that Woodson was terminated in retaliation for filing discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2299.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A. was on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent Director. Hanson & DeTroy was on brief for respondent Bath Iron Works Corporation. Compensation was denied on the ground that Bath had voluntarily paid in full for Neely's temporary disability and for all outstanding medical expenses. The pertinent facts are undisputed. Neely incurred some medical expenses and was out of work for about two weeks in October 1992. There have been no further periods of disability due to the injury. The compensation regime is one of continuing protection: subject to statute of limitations provisions. Bath also filed a notice that it was controverting Neely's right to compensation under that statute. Because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/04-1172.htm">04-1172 -- BROCK V. ORTIZ -- 08/30/2004<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Appellant Orley Kim Brock. He required medication which he claims was wrongly withheld at various times. Brock was eventually sent to a Denver hospital to receive an MRI. Was not administered. Which were mostly denied. Brock's claim is unclear. <p> In January 2004. Brock's appeal was not made in good faith because he put forth a frivolous argument in support of his appeal. Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/03-2030.htm">03-2030 -- EDEN V. VOSS -- 07/09/2004<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff James W. P. 56. <p> The primary questions we address in this appeal are (1) did the district court err in taking judicial notice of matters of public record when granting Eberline's motion to dismiss. Is entitled to qualified immunity for its search and seizure of Mr. Ortiz is entitled to absolute immunity for filing the application for the administrative search warrant. Eden was storing or transporting hazardous waste. Eden's property to determine if hazardous waste was being stored. Ortiz should not have prepared the application for the inspection warrant because she either knew or should have known there was no basis for any hazardous waste claim made by Mr. The warrant application was based on improper standards and the state court had no jurisdiction to issue a search warrant broader than permitted by the Hazardous Waste Act. He also alleged that defendants either knew or should have known that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/92-8665.opa.html">IRWIN V. HAWK<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Irwin v. <i>et seq.</i> For the reasons that follow we AFFIRM with the modification that the dismissal is without prejudice to Irwin's reassertion of his <i>Bivens</i> claims<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200701/05-7183a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Robert J. Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. Circuit Judge: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes district judges to award attorney's fees to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ACF6D4616EEF646D88257177007CE8FA/$file/0415961.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Vacek was injured when his employer's truck. In which he was a passenger. Was struck by a United States Postal Service (USPS) truck. His workers' compensation claim was processed by Golden Eagle Insurance Company. He was told to complete a Standard Form 95 and to mail it to Truedell Griffin in the Customer Service Department in San Francisco. Truett responded one week later:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AB93498640C2584888256C9B005B425D/$file/0055702.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court based both rulings on the fact that Nonnette was a state prisoner and that his civil rights claims necessarily challenged the validity of the underlying decisions that caused his continued confinement. We conclude that he is correct. Nonnette was found to have stabbed another inmate. Nonnette was assessed 360 days loss of good time credits. Was placed in administrative segregation for 100 days.1 Nonnette filed a complaint in the U.S. That he wrongfully had been denied work credits that would have led to an earlier release. The third cause of action asserted that his due process rights were violated by his disciplinary proceeding and the ensuing loss of good time credits and administrative segregation. Nonnette was required to proceed first in habeas corpus. That term was later suspended. Indicating that those arguments will also apply to the dismissals of the first two claims. That issue was addressed by the more recent decision of Heck v. SMALL [2] The Supreme Court subsequently held that the Heck rule applied to a state prisoner who was seeking damages for unconstitutional deprivation of good time credits.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EAFC4B2B87D0DDE2882572AE0057DF1A/$file/0535080.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1. Insert
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1386.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was William Silverman. With him on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief were John D. With him on the brief were John J. Does not have an impermissibly retroactive effect. Background Parkdale is a reseller. The actual duty is not formally determined until after entry. Not paid until the goods are liquidated by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942929.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Southeast Bank was declared insolvent. The FDIC was appointed receiver. We said that when a financial institution receivership case is removed to federal court following the entry of a state court judgment. This rule was first set out in Jackson v. Which adds 3 days to the prescribed time to act or to respond after notice is served by mail. Was not applicable to Rule 59. Plaintiffs within 60 days after their administrative claims were denied were required to take some action
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3113.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Because the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Concluded that the charge was supported by the evidence. We have jurisdiction to review a final order or decision of the Board under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). DISCUSSION The scope of judicial review of Board decisions is narrowly defined and limited by statute. Whether the Board erred when it affirmed the administrative judge's determination that the decision to demote Compton was not excessive or contrary to the interest of the agency. Compton asserts that the administrative judge's exclusion of his evidence pertaining to the reliability and validity of breathalyzer testing was in violation of the law and an abuse of discretion because the evidence excluded was relevant to the question of whether Compton was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1240.html">DALTON V. SOUTHWEST MARINE<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1160.html">RHP BEARINGS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
DC argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/02-10149.opn.html">MCABEE V. CITY OF FORT PAYNE (1/23/2003, NO. 02-10149)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1233.html">STARK V. ADV. MAGNETICS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-2110.htm">02-2110 -- GONZALES-LIRANZA V. NARANJO -- 10/02/2003<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> <p> Plaintiff Francisco Gonzales Liranza appeals the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913345.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Georgia who was transferred to a teaching position. Hinson was the principal of Clinch County High School for four years. She was the first female high school principal hired in Clinch County. Hinson's troubles with the Clinch County Board of Education (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913345.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Georgia who was transferred to a teaching position. Hinson was the principal of Clinch County High School for four years. She was the first female high school principal hired in Clinch County. Hinson's troubles with the Clinch County Board of Education (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2225.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Garcia was sentenced to death in New Mexico state court for the murder of a correctional officer.(1) In November 1986. Garcia was removed from death row and placed in administrative segregation.(2) In February 1988. He was transferred to a federal prison in Marion. Where he was placed in administrative segregation. Garcia was returned to New Mexico and sent to the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility (CNMCF). (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The defendants alleged Garcia was placed in voluntary administrative segregation upon his sentencing being commuted. He was never placed in voluntary administrative segregation. He alleges he was placed in involuntary administrative segregation in retaliation for his murdering a white correctional officer and his death sentence being commuted. <hr> The CNMCF placed him in involuntary administrative segregation due to his name appearing on many prisoners' enemy lists.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200408/03-7057a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-3003.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3334.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/01-1258a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1096.html">ALLEGHENY LUDLUM CORP V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David A. Argued for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/02-10149.opn.html">MCABEE V. CITY OF FORT PAYNE (1/23/2003, NO. 02-10149)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1995/95a1206p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that M. was both mentally gifted and afflicted with a specific learning disability. That she thereby was entitled to special education. Who is now nine years old. The appellants believe that M.'s disability may affect her progress in school and that she is entitled to special education from the State of Pennsylvania. When M. was in kindergarten. The appellants requested that the school district undertake a multidisciplinary evaluation of her to determine whether she was in need of special education.[fn1] Id. Concluding that M. was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016138.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An offset against future payments that Exelon (like all other utilities that produce nuclear waste) is obligated to pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113608.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For herself and all other persons from whom Defendant has or will demand. We have before us a litigant who contends that she should be allowed to circumvent the administrative remedies available to her not because resort to them would be futile. Her position is that the likelihood she says it is a near certainty that she would succeed in the administrative appeals process should excuse her from having to resort to it. Believing that what this litigant fears is one of the principal reasons for and benefits of the requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted. Was injured by an elevator door at the Tuscaloosa County Courthouse in Tuscaloosa. Is likely to require continued treatment for them. Have been paid by Medicare. The United States Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)1 sent her a letter informing her that it was statutorily subrogated to her right of recovery against the elevator company. Telling him that he was required to send HCFA a copy of his representation agreement with Cochran.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3680_046.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is being permitted to litigate her case under a pseudonym. Was a highschool student hired as a part time ice cream
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1247.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND The exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to instituting an action in federal court under both the Rehabilitation Act and Title VII. Allen Weinstein is substituted for John W. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 32.1. <hr> charge . . . is not jurisdictional. [but that] a failure to file an administrative charge at all . . . is a jurisdictional bar
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3664_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Kathleen Semien is a 54 year old woman who began working for BP Amoco in February 1989 as an environmental remediation manager. She was employed as a chemical engineer. Administrative Named Fiduciaries were granted the authority to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115148.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendants' main argument on appeal is that the district court erred in determining that the Honduran laws that served as the underlying basis of their convictions were valid and enforceable. The defendants contend that the Honduran laws were invalid. There was no violation of foreign law upon which to base their convictions.1 The defendants' challenge to the validity of the Honduran laws requires us to undertake our own foreign law determination. Our task is complicated by conflicting representations from Honduran officials regarding the validity of the Honduran laws. Shortly after the defendants were convicted. We must decide whether our courts are bound by a foreign government's new representations regarding the validity of its laws when The Lacey Act prohibits the importation of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115148op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Court hereby substitutes the following opinion in place of the opinion which was issued on March 21. The defendants' main argument on appeal is that the district court erred in determining that the Honduran laws that served as the underlying basis of their convictions were valid and enforceable. The defendants contend that the Honduran laws were invalid. There was no violation of foreign law upon which to base their convictions.1 The defendants' challenge to the validity of the Honduran laws requires us to undertake our own foreign law determination. Our task is complicated by conflicting representations from Honduran officials regarding the validity of the Honduran laws. Shortly after the defendants were convicted. If the lobsters were not imported. If the lobsters were brought into the United States legally and were not criminally derived property. We must decide whether our courts are bound by a foreign government's new representations regarding the validity of its laws when its new representations are issued only postconviction and directly contravene its original position upon which the government and our courts relied and the jury acted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210149.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question presented is whether the Alabama Water Pollution Control Act (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200310/02-5200a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1653_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ruttenberg's claim was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2314.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Finding DOE's actions were not arbitrary and capricious. Concluding disposal of radioactive wastes at WIPP was the preferred alternative to other options and authorizing disposal at the site. 63 Fed. The waste repository for the WIPP is located 2. Among the issues studied were site geology and hydrology. Transportation. <hr> WIPP is a fractured layer of dolomite rock called the Culebra Dolomite. The Culebra is the first layer above the Salado Formation with a continuous body of groundwater. These formations are arrayed as follows: Geologic Layer Depth Below the Surface in Feet Surface 0 to 538 to Forty Niner Forty Niner 538 to 596 Magenta 596 to 621 Dolomite Tamarisk 621 to 707 Culebra 707 to 729 Dolomite Lower 729 to 844 Part of Rustler Formation Upper 844 to 1. App. at 144 The possibility of radioactive material from the WIPP escaping into the local environment via groundwater was a risk factor considered by the DOE in SEIS II. Because prior studies included in the SEIS II record led DOE to conclude the Culebra was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0015n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that her property and liberty rights had been deprived without due process when she was removed without notice or hearing from her administrative position (but retained as a tenured professor). Stringfield was employed at TSU as the director of the baccalaureate nursing program and as a member of the faculty. The agreement stated that the appointment was made subject to the laws of Tennessee and the requirements and policies of the TBR and TSU. As was the case with all new employees. She states that she was granted tenure in 1999 and became a full professor the next year. Although those dates are not specified in her complaint or in the materials attached to it before the district court. 2 1 No. 04 5777 Stringfield v. Graham informed Stringfield that she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1005.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
SSC alleges that the Decision was issued in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011132.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We are unable to identify any such proceeding. The Board was conducting an Babiec failed to comply with the cease and desist order. Was indefinitely suspended from the practice of dentistry by order dated October 4. Their appeal was dismissed as part of a settlement agreement. The circuit court also determined that Babiec's trade names (1) were not misleading or deceptive. The Statute was an overbroad
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0492n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Welsh is an employee of Wachovia. Welsh was injured in a motor vehicle accident in December 1991. He was denied both short term and long term disability benefits. A. Short Term and Long Term Disability Plan Liberty is the Claims Administrator for both short term and long term disability claims brought pursuant to Wachovia's Short Term and Long Term Disability Plans (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0130p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs maintain that the Fines and PHP (1) failed to disclose to the employees that the Company was in dire financial straits and was therefore unable to make the payments necessary to support the Company's healthcare plan. The district court concluded that neither the Fines nor PHP were ERISA fiduciaries within the meaning of the statute. The plaintiffs maintain their argument that the Fines and PHP were ERISA fiduciaries. Arguing that those claims are preempted by ERISA. We (1) agree with the district court that the Fines were not ERISA fiduciaries. (2) conclude that the district court erred in ruling that PHP was not an ERISA fiduciary with respect to the assets of the Company's healthcare plan over which PHP had control. (3) hold that all but one of the plaintiffs' state law claims are preempted by ERISA. Inc. was a manufacturer of clothing products. Finkel was asked
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199908/98-5245a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Dan S. With him on the briefs was Philip B. The EEOC argues that Lutheran waived its claim that the report is protected by the attorney client and work product privileges by failing to comply with a regulation requiring subpoena recipients to present any objections to the Commis sion within five days.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5113.html">GALEN MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. V. U.S., ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
The United States.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. PLLC.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Stephanie M. 2003).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We conclude Galen has failed to establish that the award of the contract to Downing was arbitrary. Price.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The solicitation was a best value procurement and noted that technical capability was weighted slightly higher than past performance.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>However. Technical capability was assigned ninety and past performance was assigned only ten.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In the final evaluation of the proposals. Technical capability and past performance were combined into a single technical score worth a maximum of 100 points.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The score for bid price made up the remaining 100 points.</p> <p class=MsoBodyText2 style='mso pagination:widow orphan no line numbers'>Three companies submitted proposals for the project: Galen.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0277p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
AEP counters that Martin is a bona fide administrative or professional employee. Holding that Martin was exempt from overtime pay requirements because he was both an administrative employee and a computer professional. When the department was reorganized. Martin's title was changed to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/971845P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The social security system is essentially
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/971634P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 2 2 Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction in this court is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She claims that despite repeated complaints to both Breckenridge and corporate officials at Harwick the harassment continued and no corrective action was taken. Shempert went to her attorney's office where she was assisted in filling out an Intake Questionnaire. Is whether the record. Shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Where the unresolved issues are primarily legal rather than factual. Summary judgment is particularly appropriate. There is no dispute that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred on There is no state or local fair employment practices agency in Arkansas. Was November 11.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7249a.html">AMER ASSN UNIV PROF V. BD TRST UNIV DC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTcyNzQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7274-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have previously characterized the IDEA as part of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0318p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We REVERSE the district court's dismissal of Marks's state law claims to the extent that they are not related to the plan. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Marks was employed by AT&T Capital Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-9543.htm">99-9543 -- CUSTER COUNTY ACTION ASSOCIATION V. GARVEY -- 07/19/2001<BR></A><BR>
Petitioners further claim implementation of the Initiative will violate their property rights under the Third and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. <p> We exercise jurisdiction over the FAA's final order pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/00-16138.opn.html">ALABAMA POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF ENERGY (9/24/2002, NO. 00-16138)<BR></A><BR>
An offset against future payments that Exelon (like all other utilities that produce nuclear waste) is obligated to pay into</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0119p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
File Name: 00a0119p.06 Because plaintiffs have failed to show that the IEP is inappropriate. They are not entitled to reimbursement for the costs of B.J.'s DTT program. Because B.J. was offered a FAPE. The district court was correct in dismissing the remaining claims. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. I. B.J. was born on November 15. His parents noticed that his language skills were significantly delayed. When he was three. B.J. was evaluated by a Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/01-2090.htm">01-2090 -- LOPEZ V. U.S. -- 11/15/2001<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Andrew Leo Lopez. The first case was an appeal of an administrative decision by the Treasury Department to disbar him from practicing before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Administrative Appeal</u></center> <p> The Treasury Department's administrative decision to disbar plaintiff from practicing before the IRS was based on three instances of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200215918.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the FLSA does not apply to NOAs because they are independent contractors and that. Even if NOAs were employees. They were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0161p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nonexempt employees are entitled to this additional compensation for overtime work. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). B. The Administrative Employee Exemption To demonstrate that the planners are bona fide administrative employees under the applicable Department of Labor regulations (described as the short test). Salary Basis An employee is paid on a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1414.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dreyer and Louis Aucoin were on brief for appellants. Hebert was on brief for appellees. That the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)1 empowers courts to grant a remedy in the form of compensatory education to disabled students who are beyond the statutory age of entitlement for special education services. I. Factual Background2 1The IDEA was formerly known as the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA). We join them in doing so. 2These facts are drawn from the three volume Administrative Record filed by the parties in the district court on September 9. The pleadings filed in this case. 2 Plaintiff Karl Pihl is a twenty seven year old man who is emotionally disturbed and retarded. The local school system was obligated by state and federal law to provide these services to him. Was terminated due to aggressive behavior. He was placed at the Lighthouse School. Dissatisfied with the educational services Karl was receiving at the Lighthouse School. When Karl was nineteen. His mother requested a due process hearing before the Board of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) to review her claim that Karl was not receiving the educational services to which he was entitled by law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992140.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/024245u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Casey alleges that the Magistrate Judge erred by determining that his grievance was untimely. We have jurisdiction over the Magistrate Judge's final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Applying the familiar standard that a moving party is entitled to summary judgment
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A5D23B95CEB5FF388256C3D005A101D/$file/0016568.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We do not decide whether use of the prior findings at least in some fashion was improper use of judicial notice. We conclude the procedure adopted here was flawed because it did not meet the requirements of our fair notice doctrine. TERHUNE 14715 While appeal of that dismissal was pending. We have discretion to remand a case to the district court for further consideration when new laws likely to influence a decision have become effective during the pendency of an appeal. Whether the PLRA exhaustion requirement is a defense or a pleading requirement is an issue of first impression in this Circuit. We adopt the rule of the majority of circuits and hold that it is a defense that must be raised and proved by the defendant. Facts and Procedural Background Wyatt is an inmate incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione. Defendants do not dispute that Wyatt's religious beliefs are sincerely held or that dreadlocks are a means of practicing the Rastafarian religion. TERHUNE are not subject to the same regulations.2 Wyatt has been disciplined by prison officials for refusing to comply with the regulations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/9904f29c1db06c8d88256cc200597b9c/$FILE/0015734.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Polk County held that when an assistant public defender is performing the traditional role of an attorney for a client. The lawyer is not a state actor. The plaintiff in this case is Roberto Hernandez Miranda. He was convicted of capital murder and served fourteen years in prison until a Nevada state court overturned his conviction in collateral review proceedings. The Nevada court held that he was not provided effective assistance of counsel because the assistant public defender failed to investigate the case. The complaint alleges Rigsby's representation of Miranda was doomed to failure because of two policies promulgated by Harris as the head of the Office of Public Defender. The first was a policy of administering a lie detector test to all defendants and allocating minimal resources for preparation of defense to those clients who appear guilty because they failed the polygraph. The second policy was to assign the least experienced lawyers on the staff to capital cases without training or experience in the special demands of such cases.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-5159.htm">99-5159 -- WALKER V. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC. -- 02/27/2001<BR></A><BR>
2601 2654) and various tort claims under Oklahoma common law.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTIyNzctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2277-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
* The Clerk of the Court is requested to modify the official caption to reflect the correct spelling of defendant appellant Marybeth McCaffrey's name. [and] . . . why the parties are unwilling to make the loan negoti |
