skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query administrative regulatory law returned 3704 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 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
1000 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 (
967 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
959 BINGAMAN V. DEPT. OF TREASURY
891 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 (

891 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 (

886 TIME WARNER ENTRTNMT V. FCC
880 OPINION/ORDER
878 OPINION/ORDER
875 PRESEAULT V. U.S.
869 OPINION/ORDER
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
861 THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., V. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Argued for plaintiff appellant.   With him on the brief were John F. Argued for defendant appellee.  With him on the brief were Andra Barmash Greene. Communications Industry Association.  With him on the brief was Matthew Schruers.

853 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Mary Doe1 challenges the State of California's jurisdiction Pseudonyms are used to identify the mother. Who was domiciled on the Elem Indian Colony reservation at the time she was removed from Mary Doe's custody by the Lake County Department of Social Services. Which was passed in 1978 to ensure the tribes a role in adjudicating child custody proceedings involving Indian children. Codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 1963.2 ICWA provides that tribes will have exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings involving Indian children domiciled or residing on the reservation
850 OPINION/ORDER
We further conclude that NASD rules approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission have preemptive force over conflicting state law. Section 6 of the California Constitution requires the [California Judicial Council] to improve the administration of justice by . . . [a]dopting rules for court administration and rules of practice and procedure that are not inconsistent with statute . . . .
848 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
840 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
834 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
834 OPINION/ORDER
It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written.
831 OPINION/ORDER
V. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider Appellants' First Amendment claim in light of Phillips. One of the most significant is loyalty to the client. Lawyers have long been required to place their clients' money in bank accounts separate from their own. Lawyers in all fifty states are held to that same high standard of professional conduct.
831 OPINION/ORDER
V. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider Appellants' First Amendment claim in light of Phillips. One of the most significant is loyalty to the client. Lawyers have long been required to place their clients' money in bank accounts separate from their own. Lawyers in all fifty states are held to that same high standard of professional conduct.
829 OPINION/ORDER
LLC (Islander East) is a natural gas company. It appears that the challenged agency decision was arbitrary and capricious because the CTDEP (1) failed adequately to explain or support its denial with record evidence. Our consideration of section 19(d) of the NGA is a matter of first impression in this circuit. Natural gas companies are subject to the Prior to the EPACT's amendment to section 19. Which is currently pending. The FERC is required to issue such a certificate if it finds the company
829 OPINION/ORDER
LLC (Islander East) is a natural gas company. It appears that the challenged agency decision was arbitrary and capricious because the CTDEP (1) failed adequately to explain or support its denial with record evidence. Our consideration of section 19(d) of the NGA is a matter of first impression in this circuit. Natural gas companies are subject to the Prior to the EPACT's amendment to section 19. Which is currently pending. The FERC is required to issue such a certificate if it finds the company
826 OPINION/ORDER
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.
823 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
823 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
821 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
821 OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs tell a compelling story and are not the first to tell it. Similar allegations have appeared in a separate class action. In complaints filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
821 OPINION/ORDER
We disagree and will reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts of the underlying RICO suit are straightforward. Weiss was employed by Tucker Anthony Sutro as an investment banker. He was insured by First Unum through a group insurance policy with Tucker Anthony Sutro. The policy provided long term disability benefits when the insured is
821 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?
821 OPINION/ORDER
The basic law underlying Dia's substantive claims is clear. He is unable or unwilling to return to his home country
821 OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs tell a compelling story and are not the first to tell it. Similar allegations have appeared in a separate class action. In complaints filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
810 CIENEGA GARDENS V. U.S.

Argued for plaintiffs appellants.  With him on the brief were Everett C. Argued for defendant appellee.  With him on the brief was David M. Director.  Of counsel on the brief were Carole W. Rental rates were held below market rates.  On exiting the programs. The trial court granted summary judgment solely on the basis of that decision.  This appeal is. We conclude a property right vested in the Owners that was temporarily taken.  We also conclude that there is no reason this taking is not. Compensable under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  We further hold with respect to at least the subset of Owners for whom there is a well developed record before us. That they are entitled to ". Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[3]  This appeal is one in a series of proceedings.
796 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
796 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.
796 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
794 OPINION/ORDER
Lawrence Seidman (
791 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Richard B. With him on the brief were Michelle M. Fred Wertheimer. 2 Trevor Potter was on the brief for amici curiae John McCain. Federal campaign finance law is complex. BCRA is no exception. Though few of its details are important to this litigation (and those that are we describe later in our analysis).
791 DEL-RIO DRILLING V. U.S.
788 OPINION/ORDER
Nottoway County contends that its decision to deny the permit was indeed supported by
788 03-9508 -- MCNALLY PITTSBURG MANUFACTURING CO. V. DIRECTOR OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS -- 02/10/2004

788 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

785 OPINION/ORDER
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
785 OPINION/ORDER
The Compact was created and entered into by five member states and was also enacted into law by Congress. Nebraska was selected as the site for the facility. The Commission is a plaintiff in this case. This action was originally brought against Nebraska and the Commission by utility companies from the five Compact states: Entergy Arkansas. The defendants named in the Commission's complaint were the State of Nebraska. The case was tried to the district court for two months. It found that Nebraska had not carried out its obligations under the Compact in good faith and that the Commission was entitled to recover over $97 million for funds and work expended in the thwarted attempt to construct the radioactive waste disposal facility. Some of which were decided against it on earlier appeals. We have already addressed the Compact and related issues in a series of earlier appeals in this case. 207 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2000) (Nebraska did not have veto power over low level radioactive waste export permits). V. Each member state is represented on the Commission by one representative and is entitled to a single vote.
780 OPINION/ORDER
2 the EPA created a scheme in which the Environmental Appeals Board (
780 OPINION/ORDER
The district court held that the action was not time barred and that
780 OPINION/ORDER
As the issues raised in this appeal are matters of first impression among the courts of appeals.
777 LOGGERHEAD TURTLE V. COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (8/3/1998, NO. 97-2083)

Whether another federally protected sea turtle should have been allowed to join the Turtles as a party. The brightest light is the moon's reflection off the surf. Vehicles and other types of beachfront lighting have been documented in the disorientation (loss of bearings) and misorientation (incorrect orientation) of hatchling turtles
777 OPINION/ORDER
Argue that Oklahoma's statutory scheme for specialty motor vehicle license plates is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Motorists contend that Oklahoma's laws unlawfully discriminate against their views by permitting drivers to obtain license plates bearing the messages
777 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 (
777 OPINION/ORDER
Line 31 the spelling of Justice Frankfurter's name is corrected. Line 3 the citation to Coeur d'Alene Tribe is corrected to read
777 OPINION/ORDER
Who are eight small power producing companies. Conditions and interpretation of which is governed by a complex state and federal regulatory scheme. Plaintiffs contend that Consumers Energy is not paying them contractually agreed upon amounts. They have sought relief in several different forums over the past several years. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the district court properly declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Plaintiffs argue on appeal that the complaint was not one solely for declaratory judgment and the district court erred in treating it as such. I. Plaintiffs are eight small power producers that sell power to Consumers Energy Company. The sale of power from these small producers is governed by a complex set of federal and state regulations. Plaintiffs are nonutility power producers known as
777 OPINION/ORDER
We are called on once again to consider the Three Mile Island accident as we determine the appropriate standard of care for the operators of the facility. We held that the Act created no federal cause of action and was not intended to confer jurisdiction on the federal courts. The actions were remanded to the appropriate state courts. These personal injury actions were removed to federal court and consolidated in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The district court found the standard of care was set by the federal regulations: 1) prescribing the maximum permissible levels of human exposure to radiation[fn5] and 2) requiring radiation releases to be
777 LOGGERHEAD TURTLE V. COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (8/3/1998, NO. 97-2083)

Whether another federally protected sea turtle should have been allowed to join the Turtles as a party. The brightest light is the moon's reflection off the surf. Vehicles and other types of beachfront lighting have been documented in the disorientation (loss of bearings) and misorientation (incorrect orientation) of hatchling turtles
775 97-9528 -- WALKER STONE CO. INC. V. SECRETARY OF LABOR -- 09/22/1998

816(a)(1) and holds that breaking up rocks which are obstructing a crusher constitutes
775 OPINION/ORDER
Were on the briefs. Was on the briefs. Here we are presented with a will contest involving a member of an Indian tribe in a Department of the Interior probate proceeding where we must decide whether state or federal law of evidence applies. Covington executed a will leaving all her Indian trust allotments to her great grandson. The will listed one of Covington's grandchildren. Though the term
775 OPINION/ORDER
Claim a competing property interest in any of the land. (1) Phelps Dodge is the ultimate parent company of MEMCO.
The BLM determined that nine of MEMCO's claims satisfied patent requirements. The district court held that third parties who claim no ownership interest in the land subject to a mineral patent cannot challenge the issuance or validity of the patent under the 1872 Mining Law and have no right to relief under the APA. Is a matter of first impression. The Plaintiffs' second claim (FOIA) against the BLM is still pending in the district court and is not the subject of this appeal.
subject matter jurisdiction. P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo). B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Federal Appellees It is well settled that the Plaintiffs can only sue the BLM to the extent it waived its sovereign immunity. 1331 will only confer subject matter jurisdiction where some other statute provides such a waiver. Is entitled to judicial review thereof.
769 NATL FUEL GAS SUPPLY V. FERC
764 OPINION/ORDER
The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety (
764 OPINION/ORDER
2001 is amended as follows: 1) The opinion's list of counsel for the defendantsappellees. The first three sentences of the first full paragraph should be replaced by the following: 235
764 OPINION/ORDER
The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety (
761 CIENEGA GARDENS V. US
761 OPINION/ORDER
L.P. (
761 OPINION/ORDER
While the statutory and factual background in this appeal is quite complicated. The ultimate issue is relatively straightforward: whether BPA's authority to settle out of power contracts is bound by the power exchange requirements of the Northwest Power Act (
761 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.
758 02-4149 -- SKULL VALLEY BAND OF GOSHUTE INDIANS V. NIELSON -- 08/04/2004

Appeal the district court's ruling that the state's statutes regulating the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel are preempted by federal law. See Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v. The Utah officials argue that the district court should not have reached the merits of this dispute because (1) the plaintiffs who challenge the statutes
758 OPINION/ORDER
The areas to be inspected were a residential dock and adjacent areas located on tidal wetlands off the rear portion of Palmieri's backyard. Palmieri's claim is one essentially sounding in trespass quare clausum fregit that has escalated into a constitutional claim of Fourth Amendment violations only because the trespassers were representatives of a state government regulatory agency. Entry of these state actors was responsive to Palmieri's desire to obtain a necessary permit to conduct construction work on his property. That the agents were dispatched by Palmieri within minutes of their entry and that no damage was done might have justified the disposition of this case by application of the maxim de minimis non curat lex. Because of the 1 John Doe #1 is presumably the intern who accompanied Lynch on her inspection. We are constrained to undertake the more elaborate analysis that follows. The property is situated on Long Island's Great South Bay and encompasses both New York State regulated tidal wetlands and a regulated adjacent area.
758 OPINION/ORDER
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
758 REZI P. FORSHEY V. ANTHONY PRINCIPI

For respondent appellee.
756 WILLIAM O. SCHISM V. U.S.

Argued for plaintiffs appellants.
756 GEN ELEC CO V. EPA
753 PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA V. DISBLED AMERICAN VETS

For petitioner Paralyzed Veterans of America.  With him on the brief was Lawrence B. Argued for petitioner Disabled American Veterans.  With him on the brief was Ronald L. Joseph Holmes.  With her on the brief were Stephen B. Flagg
753 OPINION/ORDER
It is hereby DENIED. Such a view is utterly irreconcilable with the principles underlying our system of dual sovereignty. The federal chancellor's control over basic state functions will be unfettered and complete. I will briefly recapitulate the principal factors that in combination rendered the district court's refusal to abstain an abuse of discretion. 1. 1974 (1999) (Equity jurisdiction does not vest federal courts with
753 CITYFED FINCL CORP V. OTS
750 MCALPINE V. UNITED STATES

The revised opinion is attached for your convenience. Ruling that the Secretary's decision is a non reviewable discretionary act and. McAlpine is an enrolled member of the Osage Tribe who purchased two parcels of land in Woodson and Neosho counties in southeastern Kansas in 1988. The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. appropriations act for the Indian Department. The Superintendent of the Osage Agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) which is within the Department of the Interior in Pawhuska. Did not apply to the two parcels of land because they were not part of the diminished reservation and that there was no justifiable reason to place the land in trust status and take it off the local tax rolls. Finding that the appropriate statutory authority for analyzing trust land acquisitions is 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934. That the BIA's task was to apply its regulations promulgated under 465 in reaching its decision. The Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) to which the Secretary's authority is delegated.
750 OPINION/ORDER
Challenging the FDA's jurisdiction over tobacco products and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.1 Plaintiffs then filed a 1 When the complaint was filed on August 10. All references in this opinion are to the final version of the rule published in the Federal Register on August 28. They have been added for emphasis unless otherwise indicated. 13 motion for summary judgment in the district court. Jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) and 1292(b). We are of opinion that the FDA lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. 1996 regulations of tobacco products are thus invalid. All 50 States have already banned the sale of tobacco to minors under state law. Tobacco products fit within these definitions because they are
747 OPINION/ORDER
It is now before us for the second time after a remand by the Supreme Court. The main question today is this: whether a federal court has jurisdiction over a local carrier's claim that a state utility commission misinterpreted interconnection agreement provisions on reciprocal compensation that are based on federal law. We hold that there is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That the action was not filed on a timely basis. The case will be remanded for further proceedings on the incumbent local carrier's contract misinterpretation claim. Telephone service in a local calling area was provided by a single local exchange carrier (local carrier). The duty to interconnect is coupled with other duties set forth in § 251. When the direction is reversed. The terms under which two competing local carriers interconnect their networks and provide for reciprocal compensation are set forth VERIZON MARYLAND v. Inc.) was providing local telephone service in Maryland. (We will refer to MFS Intelenet in the name of its successor.
747 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On page 28. Were on brief. Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Will & Emery. (2) make findings regarding allegations of anticompetitive consequences of the merger that were unique to Holyoke. Northeast Utilities Service Company (
745 HARRIS V. JAMES

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Harris v. Alleging that Alabama's Medicaid plan was not in compliance with a federal regulation requiring State Medicaid plans to ensure necessary transportation for recipients to and from providers. Because the State does not challenge the district court's conclusion that the plan was not in compliance with the regulation. We wrote:<p> Medicaid is a cooperative venture of the state and federal governments. A state which chooses to participate in Medicaid submits a state plan for the funding of medical services for the needy which is approved by the federal government. <p> <p> (a) Specify that the Medicaid agency will ensure necessary transportation for recipients to and from providers. And<p> <p> (b) Describe the methods that the agency will use to meet this requirement.<p> <p> 42 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="745"></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-7.gif" ALT="745"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2324.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ltd</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on brief. This case requires us to determine whether appellant Capital Terminal Company was entitled to reach a jury on its claim that certain improvements to a fire suppression system were required by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="745"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/95-6861.opa.html">HARRIS V. JAMES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Harris v. Alleging that Alabama's Medicaid plan was not in compliance with a federal regulation requiring State Medicaid plans to ensure necessary transportation for recipients to and from providers. Because the State does not challenge the district court's conclusion that the plan was not in compliance with the regulation. We wrote:<p> Medicaid is a cooperative venture of the state and federal governments. A state which chooses to participate in Medicaid submits a state plan for the funding of medical services for the needy which is approved by the federal government. <p> <p> (a) Specify that the Medicaid agency will ensure necessary transportation for recipients to and from providers. And<p> <p> (b) Describe the methods that the agency will use to meet this requirement.<p> <p> 42 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="745"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2446.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the statute on the ground that it is preempted by the Supremacy Clause and violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Which establishes the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="745"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044481p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Food and Drug Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-7080.htm">02-7080 -- PITTSBURG COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO.7 V. CITY OF MCALESTER -- 02/06/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAwNDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0047_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6303.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAwNDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0047_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAwNDcgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-0047%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AAEB4F1BB780D3ED8825718000726DA6/$file/0455354.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the case and were on the briefs for the appellants/cross appellees. Argued the case and was on the briefs for the appellees/cross appellants. Were on the briefs for amicus curiae California Board of Equalization. We hold that an importer of goods destined for domestic consumption is not exempt from state excise taxes and administrative searches by federal Customs officials simply because it stores its merchandise in a foreign trade zone. Was licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol. The term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-7080.htm">02-7080 -- PITTSBURG COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO. 7 V. CITY OF MCALESTER -- 10/17/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></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-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5163.html">GABRIEL J. MARTINEZ V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>On the brief was <u>David M. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Tara A. Of counsel were <u>Aileen M. </span><st1:State><span style='font family:Arial'>DC</span></st1:State></st1:place><span style='font family:Arial'>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Also of counsel was <u>Captain David E. Martinez<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><span style='ms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/002139.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is whether the Eleventh Amendment bars suit in federal court against a state official where what is at issue is that * The Honorable Arthur L. Will affirm in part and reverse in part the orders of the District Court. Any person having an interest which is or may be adversely affected may commence a civil action on his own behalf to compel compliance with this chapter (1) against the United States or any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution which is alleged to be in violation of the provisions of this chapter or of any rule. Or against any other person who is alleged to be in violation of any rule. Or (2) against the Secretary or the appropriate State regulatory authority to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to 3 was also invoked under 28 U.S.C. Defendants in this action for declaratory and injunctive relief are James M. ARIPPA were permitted to intervene as defendants. Seif is the sole named defendant in Counts One through Eight of the eleven count complaint. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1077.html">OY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </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/200707/05-1177a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </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/417DF987C40DCF6888256B810000BC8A/$file/9935088.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Vacate the district court's determination that the lottery itself is illegal under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). We conclude that AT&T was not the proper party to challenge the legality of the lottery. An off Reservation winner receives a credit to his or her account that is redeemable in person or through the mail. This aspect of the Lottery is subject to litigation in the Eighth Circuit and the Missouri state courts. The Eighth Circuit has remanded to the district court to determine whether the Lottery is a gaming activity on Indian lands subject to IGRA. The parties have returned to the Missouri state court. From which the case was originally removed. 2 The only relevant compact provision states: </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=97-8022.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for Philip Morris appellants. Were on brief for United States Tobacco Company appellants. Were on brief for appellees. The specific plaintiffs appellants are Philip Morris Incorporated. The specific defendants appellees are L. We consider the statutes' respective texts along with the relevant historical and legislative contexts in which they were enacted. Normally we consider the record evidence with respect to each motion separately </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/9F2D0E6B6C3941E788256E0100727307/$file/0216508.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Presiding *The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are California card clubs and charities that are prohibited under California state law from offering casinostyle gaming. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUzNDEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5341-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These motions were premised on plaintiffs' lack of standing and defendants' qualified immunity and were made by public officer defendants in their individual capacities. Which was to be held June 7­8. Field Day was constrained by the provisions of New 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 York's Mass Gathering Law. PUBLIC HEALTH LAW § 225(5)(o) (providing that the Mass Gathering Law is to apply to gatherings that are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></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="734"></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="734"></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="734"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1539.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="731"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C48384B12A4F727882570F500059764/$file/0355548.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2005 and appearing at 421 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2005) is hereby amended as follows: 1) 421 F.3d at 852. Reliance2 was placed in rehabilitation proceedings. Reliance's principal argument is that the district court erred in continuing to exercise jurisdiction over Hawthorne's suit once the rehaInsurance companies are expressly excluded from federal bankruptcy laws. Charging substantial fees and interest.4 After the period in which Bazyler could have rescinded the loan without penalty passed. Braly decided to have Hawthorne bid against Bazyler at the foreclosure sale. Even though there was no doubt that Bazyler had the necessary collateral for the extra funds. The facts giving rise to the original settlement between Bazyler and Hawthorne are undisputed and were stipulated at trial. 4 HAWTHORNE SAVINGS v. Hawthorne was insured by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="731"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56ADB59DAD4DF55388257248007DAED4/$file/0372511.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioners Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioner Southern California Water Company. Lyons was also on the briefs as attorney for the same party. Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioner Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the same party. 19546 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT v. Were on the briefs of petitioner Office of the Nevada Attorney General. Argued the case and was on the briefs of the respondent. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the respondent. Was on the brief of intervenor Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. Were on the joint brief of the intervenors. Were on the joint brief of the intervenors. Were on the brief of intervenor Mirant Americas Energy Marketing LP. Will & Emery LLP. Were on the brief of intervenor Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. Argued the case and was on the joint brief of the interve PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="731"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1C5285F8C8D98ADE88257067004C3F34/$file/0355548.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Insurance companies are expressly excluded from federal bankruptcy laws. Reliance2 was placed in rehabilitation proceedings. Reliance's principal argument is that the district court erred in continuing to exercise jurisdiction over Hawthorne's suit once the rehabilitation proceedings began. Charging substantial fees and interest.4 After the period in which Bazyler could have rescinded the loan without penalty passed. Braly decided to have Hawthorne bid against Bazyler at the foreclosure sale. Even though there was no doubt that Bazyler had the necessary collateral for the extra funds. Hawthorne was insured by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="731"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511682.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The key issue presented in this petition for review is whether the Federal Communications Commission exceeded its authority. Which is the exclusive province of federal regulation. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A). Which are regulable by the states. We dismiss the petition of the Vermont Board because it is not a </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=02-1621.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. The parties have filed cross appeals which raise difficult questions about the lawfulness and proper scope of the injunction in light of arguably conflicting federal statutes that. That Puerto Rico's restrictions on delivery were preempted by federal law. That an administrative fine imposed by the Secretary was invalid and unenforceable. The Secretary also makes an alternative argument that the injunction is overbroad. Factual and Procedural Background</STRONG></SPAN></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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2BB969A64BA53CBD88256BF900583F6E/$file/9935088.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 4421 of the slip opinion. Delete the sentence beginning </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2326.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1249.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Almost eight hours passed between the time when he first reported feeling sick and when he was finally taken to a doctor. Is a federal prisoner housed at the United States Penitentiary. Was convicted on November 28. Is currently serving a 262 month sentence. Kikumura's cell at 2:50 p.m. and observed that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/75ED5FF195B93D3F88256E5A00707C48/$file/0016181.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </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=00-2326B.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States appellants.</SPAN> <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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8945F2F04A0292988256AA7005B8CAA/$file/0016181.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </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/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1426a.html">ENVIROCARE OF UTAH V. NRC<BR></A><BR> With him </P> <P>on the briefs was Lynda L. With him on </P> <P>the brief were Lois J. Rader were on </P> <P>the brief for intervenors.</P> <P> Before: Edwards. Permit persons to intervene in administrative </P> <P>proceedings even though these persons would not have stand </P> <P>ing to challenge the agency's final action in federal court. </P> <P>Agencies. Are not constrained by Article III of the </P> <P>Constitution. Nor are they governed by judicially created </P> <P>standing doctrines restricting access to the federal courts. </P> <P>The criteria for establishing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968130.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who died after she fell or was thrown from a boat and then struck by a Brunswick engine propeller. The Brunswick engine involved in their daughter's death was defective because it lacked a propeller guard. The district court held that the Lewises' claims were preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act. Whether the Lewises' claims are preempted by the Act. As we will explain in Part VII. The preemption clause and the savings clause in the Act provide contradictory indications of congressional intent relating to whether the Lewises' claims are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that they are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that those claims are expressly saved from preemption either. Our resolution of the question of preemption in this case turns on whether the Lewises' claims are impliedly preempted by the Act. those claims conflict with the We hold that they are. Kathryn Lewis was spending the day with her boyfriend's family in a boat on Strom Thurmond Lake in Georgia. While the boat was pulling Kathryn's boyfriend on an inner tube. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/012224.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lawrence to operate a facility that would have an adverse disparate racial impact upon them in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We hold that an administrative regulation cannot create an interest enforceable under section 1983 unless the interest already is implicit in the statute authorizing the regulation. The plaintiffs do not have a right enforceable through a 1983 action under the EPA's disparate impact discrimination regulations. We will reverse. We point out that the residents of Waterfront South are predominately minorities and the neighborhood is disadvantaged environmentally.1 Waterfront South contains two Superfund sites. Lawrence's business is the processing of ground granulated blast furnace slag ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/97-1304.htm">97-1304 -- ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS INC. V. SLATER -- 09/25/2000<BR></A><BR> We are just one race here. It is American. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413575.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They are not entitled to such immunity in this case because Weissman's complaint relates to private commercial conduct not mandated by the Act. Weissman's motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction was granted in part by prior order dated October 13. Over which we have jurisdiction. If Appellants' immunity claim is meritorious. They will necessarily be insulated from pre trial discovery. 2 1 * BACKGROUND Between December 2000 and June 2002. Weissman's complaint was initially dismissed for failure to allege diversity of citizenship. 2 emphasizing that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="723"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/04-5350c.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Daniel J. Duff were on the brief for amici curiae John E. Edmonds was on the brief for amici curiae Emil Freireich and Stephen Strum in support of appellants. With him on the brief were Peter D. Turner was on the brief for amici curiae American Society of Clinical Oncology. Schultz was on the brief for amici curiae National Organization for Rare Disorders. Circuit Judge: This case presents the question whether the Constitution provides terminally ill patients a right of access to experimental drugs that have passed limited safety 3 trials but have not been proven safe and effective. The district court held there is no such right. A divided panel of this Court held there is. Because we conclude that there is no fundamental right </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="723"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2340.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="723"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar97/96-8130.opa.html">LEWIS V. BRUNSWICK CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lewis v. Who died after she fell or was thrown from a boat and then struck by a Brunswick engine propeller. The Brunswick engine involved in their daughter's death was defective because it lacked a propeller guard. The district court held that the Lewises' claims were preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act. Whether the Lewises' claims are preempted by the Act.<p> As we will explain in Part VII. The preemption clause and the savings clause in the Act provide contradictory indications of congressional intent relating to whether the Lewises' claims are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that they are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that those claims are expressly saved from preemption either. Our resolution of the question of preemption in this case turns on whether the Lewises' claims are impliedly preempted by the Act. We hold that they are. Kathryn Lewis was spending the day with her boyfriend's family in a boat on Strom Thurmond Lake in Georgia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="723"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar97/96-8130.opa.html">LEWIS V. BRUNSWICK CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lewis v. Who died after she fell or was thrown from a boat and then struck by a Brunswick engine propeller. The Brunswick engine involved in their daughter's death was defective because it lacked a propeller guard. The district court held that the Lewises' claims were preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act. Whether the Lewises' claims are preempted by the Act.<p> As we will explain in Part VII. The preemption clause and the savings clause in the Act provide contradictory indications of congressional intent relating to whether the Lewises' claims are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that they are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that those claims are expressly saved from preemption either. Our resolution of the question of preemption in this case turns on whether the Lewises' claims are impliedly preempted by the Act. We hold that they are. Kathryn Lewis was spending the day with her boyfriend's family in a boat on Strom Thurmond Lake in Georgia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1104.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/977A3690A89BE17D8825722D007DA4DA/$file/0415788.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Challenge the United States Department of Agriculture's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAyNTAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0250-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are persons who were involved in federally mandated drug testing of the plaintiff that resulted in the termination of his employment. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 federal constitutional claims but concluded that his state law claims were not preempted by federal law and entered an order declining to dismiss them. Was terminated from his employment by Delta Air Lines in 1993 because airline officials thought he had failed a drug test required of him as an airline employee by federal law. That the defendants appellants conducted the tests in violation of federal regulations and industry standards and that they falsely represented to Delta that Drake's urine sample was adulterated.1 The district court (Frederic Block. Concluding that they were not preempted by federal law. The issues raised on appeal are whether and to what extent federal statutes and regulations concerning drug testing of persons employed in the aviation industry preempt the application of state tort law to events arising out of such drug tests. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAyNTAtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-0250-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are persons who were involved in federally mandated drug testing of the plaintiff that resulted in the termination of his employment. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's federal constitutional claims but concluded that his state law civil claims were not preempted by federal law and entered an order declining to dismiss them. Was terminated from his employment by Delta Air Lines in 1993 because airline officials thought he had failed a drug test required of him as an airline employee by federal law. That the defendants appellants conducted the tests in violation of federal regulations and industry standards and that they falsely represented to Delta that Drake's urine sample was adulterated.1 The district court (Frederic Block. Concluding that they were not preempted by federal law. The issues raised on appeal are whether and to what extent federal statutes and regulations concerning drug testing of persons employed in the aviation industry preempt the application of state tort law to events arising out of such drug tests. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021736.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It does not present the question of whether mountaintop coal mining is useful. Therefore that the Corps' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021494A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We now conclude that the government's waiver of sovereign immunity reflected in the Suits in Admiralty Act is subject to an implied exception similar to the discretionary function exception contained within the Federal Tort Claims Act. I. The relevant facts are set out in detail in the panel's opinion. We will only briefly recount them here. The plaintiffs were riding two jet skis on the Ohio River in the vicinity of the Robert C. The plaintiffs were injured when they went over the gates and dropped approximately twenty five feet to the water below. There were several warning signs on the upstream side of the dam. Their evidence indicated that the signs were difficult to see from the river. Alleging that the government had a duty to warn about the dangers of the dam and that the signs in place were inadequate to satisfy this duty. Arguing that it was protected by an implied discretionary function exception to the SIAA's waiver of sovereign immunity. The government also moved for summary judgment on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that it had no duty to warn about the dam and that the warnings it provided were. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-1426a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2262.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F63C3857EBE8263588256E9F007CAC71/$file/0235587.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the Ashcroft Directive is unlawful and unenforceable because it violates the plain language of the CSA. The petitions for review are granted. I We have original jurisdiction over </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEyOTUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1295-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Woodbury's municipal towing law is preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14501 because it is not genuinely responsive to safety concerns. (2) the district court properly declined to award damages to Loyal Tire under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the § 14501 preemption claim because the statute is not enforceable via § 1983 but erred by awarding attorneys' fees to Loyal Tire under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) on that claim. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1365a.html">FAA V. NTSB<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were <i></p> <p>Frank W. Assistant Attorney General at the time </p> <p>the briefs were filed. With him </p> <p>on the brief was <i>James W. Then describe the nature of the split enforcement </p> <p>regime in more detail.</p> <p><b>A</b></p> <p>The facts of the case are undisputed. </p> <p>Merrell was the pilot in command of a commercial passenger </p> <p>plane. Mistakenly thought that the instruction </p> <p>to American was intended for his aircraft. </p> <p>his transmission was blocked. ATC will </p> <p>receive a portion of the stepped on message. Two transmissions will overlap </p> <p>completely without creating an identifiable buzz. This ap </p> <p>pears to have happened in Merrell's case. As a result his transmission was entirely blocked. </p> <p>ATC heard neither Merrell's readback nor any indication that </p> <p>it had occurred. Operat[ing] </p> <p>an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which </p> <p>air traffic control is exercised. That this mistake was due to his own carelessness </p> <p>rather than to ATC error. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0896p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Through the exercise in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199909/98-1365a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney General at the time the briefs were filed. With him on the brief was James W. A The facts of the case are undisputed. Merrell was the pilot in command of a commercial passenger plane. Mistakenly thought that the instruction to American was intended for his aircraft. His transmission was blocked. ATC will receive a portion of the stepped on message. Two transmissions will overlap completely without creating an identifiable buzz. This ap pears to have happened in Merrell's case. As a result his transmission was entirely blocked. (1) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6566B768B9F1E5E9882570CA00000E81/$file/0335924.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Environmental Protection Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/94-2258.htm">94-2258 -- U.S. V. AGRONICS INCORPORATED -- 01/22/1999<BR></A><BR> <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1731.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Markopoulos were on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellee McCabe. Zinger's apartment was located. 2 [hereinafter: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/231135295B45B74088256C3D00602467/$file/0156879.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The idea animating AB 1890 was that deregulation would foster competition in electrical generation. The goal of AB 1890 was to create a deregulated market in which price would be established by competition and consumers could select their electrical power supplier. Stranded costs are those costs an electrical supplier incurs in anticipation of serving customers that later become unrecoverable because the supplier either cannot The legislation is summarized in Cal. LYNCH charge a rate that allows cost recovery or is unable to sell sufficient power. This most typically occurs when there is a shift in utility rate philosophy from a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0342p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The LPO's first claim is that Ohio's policy mandating strict compliance with election laws violates the Constitution. We do not have jurisdiction to address it. Which is not moot. Is that the combination of two Ohio election regulations ­ the requirement that all political parties nominate their candidates via primary election and the requirement that all minor political parties file a petition with the Secretary 120 days in advance of the primary ­ imposes an unconstitutional burden on its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of free association. As the regulations are not narrowly tailored and do not advance a compelling state interest. States have pushed back the dates of their primary elections to the beginning of the primary election cycle. The issue in this case is whether the move to accommodate the major parties has placed an impermissible burden on the constitutional rights of minor parties. Primaries are held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. When the primaries are held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/608B5B5A21806D3588256EF90056C7CE/$file/0217375.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4052.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> INTRODUCTION The current action is one of a number of pending judicial and administrative actions raising the question whether incumbent local exchange carriers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5407E7856E0AC35788256EB700589094/$file/0217375.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs in this case are physicians who provide abortions in their private medical practices in Arizona. They challenge the constitutionality of a statutory and regulatory scheme which requires the licensing and regulation of any medical facility in which five or more first trimester abortions in any month or any second or third trimester abortions are performed. I. Factual and Procedural Background1 1 Some of the evidence of record in this case is contested. They state that they are appealing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/058EC3532F25D02588256F1C0052B980/$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-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/02/96-8083.htm">96-8083 -- PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL V. BABBITT -- 02/09/1999<BR></A><BR> Public Lands Council concedes that the statutory citation is incorrect but contends that we should cite a different statutory provision rather than remove the highlighted portion of the sentence. <p> Upon consideration. The court grants the limited petition for rehearing and orders the highlighted portion of the sentence removed from the court's opinion so that the sentence will read: </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/02opinions/02-5188.html">CHRISTOPHER VILLAGE, L.P., ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>E. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel were <u>David M. </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>This case presents the question whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment as to the government s liability for breach of contract solely in order to create a predicate for suit to recover damages in the Court of Federal Claims.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>We hold that district courts do not have such jurisdiction because the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. The predicate judgment was void.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>It follows that the Court of Federal Claims was not bound by this earlier judgment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>On the merits. We affirm the Court of Federal Claims grant of summary judgment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>We agree that the contract between the government and the appellants was unenforceable against the government because of a material breach by the appellants predating the government s alleged breach. </p> <h2 style='line height:200%'><span style='text decoration:none. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53EE1C88927D5D9D88256F23005032D0/$file/0335235.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2000/98-3692.man.html">BOYES V. SHELL OIL PRODUCTS CO. (1/4/2000, NO. 98-3692)<BR></A><BR> Florida that is allegedly contaminated with petroleum waste as a result of service stations previously owned or operated by Shell Oil Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2000/98-3692.man.html">BOYES V. SHELL OIL PRODUCTS CO. (1/4/2000, NO. 98-3692)<BR></A><BR> Florida that is allegedly contaminated with petroleum waste as a result of service stations previously owned or operated by Shell Oil Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/023381p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are once again called upon to determine whether a lawsuit claiming medical negligence is completely preempted by the civil enforcement provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-8083.htm">96-8083 -- PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL V. BABBITT -- 09/01/1998<BR></A><BR> </strong>Chief Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612370.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are state environmental regulators and local political actors. Brought a section 1983 suit against various state and local defendants on the theory that the defendants violated its constitutional right to equal protection by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></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="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1798p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction to review thefinal orders of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The Secretary of Banking at the time of the events we describe was Sarah W. This 1991 agreement was prompted when Meritor proposed that its 12% Subordinated Capital Noteholders ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></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="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/58AF00C2122345DD88256DB7005BFAA3/$file/0270518.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Also were on the briefs. Wilson also were on the briefs. Also were on the briefs. Also were on the briefs. Also were on the brief. Blum also were on the brief. Also were on the brief. Also were on the brief. Also were on the brief. Also were on the brief. I Over half of the households in the United States have Internet connections. A Nation Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet at 2 (Feb. 2002). Available at http:// www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/anationonline2.pdf (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></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="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5100.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was John S. Of counsel on the brief were James F. With her on the brief were Peter D. The United States is liable for the use of a method patent only when it practices every step of the claimed method in the United States. I. Zoltek Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/032329P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/99-4210.htm">99-4210 -- U.S. V. HARDMAN -- 08/05/2002<BR></A><BR> Jr. were convicted for unrelated counts of illegally possessing eagle feathers in violation of sections 703 and 668(a) of Title 16 of the United States Code. Was not criminally prosecuted.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991319.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reverse this decision and uphold the constitutionality of Regulation 61 12 because (1) the Regulation serves a valid state interest and is little more than a codification of national medical and abortion association recommendations designed to ensure the health and appropriate care of women seeking abortions. Are even yet modest and have not been shown to burden the ability of a woman to make the decision to have an abortion. (4) abortion clinics may rationally be regulated as a class while other clinics or medical practices are not. South Carolina regulated clinics at which secondtrimester abortions were performed. The South Carolina legislature amended its statute to require any </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2282OPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Simpson</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. Its meat is highly valued by epicures across the country. American lobsters along the Atlantic Coast are overfished. Lobster fishermen who reside in and whose vessels are based in Rhode Island brought suit challenging the Secretary's regulations on various grounds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E7289F7685CAA0A788256EBA005A6CED/$file/0150633.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the statement was taken in violation of his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and in violation of his entitlement to Miranda warnings under the Fifth Amendment. Bowdich's subsequent investigation led him to believe that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1317.html">CRUDE COMPANY V. FERC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0544n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were he not Romeo call'd. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1224.html">DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE V. WILLIAM HOGARTH<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Kumar Vaswani</u>.</p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> . Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas L. Director.<span s </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5027.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></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="691"></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-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/96-4118.man.html">FDIC V. LACENTRA TRUCKING, INC. (10/16/1998, NO. 96-4118)<BR></A><BR> Section 1821(d)(13)(D) provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/96-4118.man.html">FDIC V. LACENTRA TRUCKING, INC. (10/16/1998, NO. 96-4118)<BR></A><BR> Section 1821(d)(13)(D) provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200512/04-5257a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Gregory G. With him on the brief was Rhonda M. Peter Buscemi was on the brief for amici curiae State and Local Bar Associations in support of appellees. Babb were on the brief for amicus curiae The Conference of Chief Justices in support of appellee American Bar Association. The Bar Associations sought a declaratory judgment that the FTC's decision that attorneys engaged in the practice of law are covered by the Gramm Leach Bliley Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1249.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murphy and Menard Murphy & Walsh were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. On the basis that the action was preempted by federal law. While Doulamis is not named as the aggrieved employee in these charges. Both parties agree that the employee referred to therein is. It is also alleged that these employees formed. That Chaulk's conduct was a deliberate attempt to discourage the employees from engaging in these activities. A full and comprehensive settlement agreement was reached between Chaulk and the NLRB in March 1995 regarding these claims. In that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></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="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982174.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></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="688"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BAA25A9642E5CC2E88256CEF0078ADD5/$file/0150633.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced with the attached dissent. FBI Special Agent David Bowdich was assigned to investigate a series of bank robberies that UNITED STATES v. Bowdich received information from an unnamed source that a person known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B36344789404F68B882572EA00534820/$file/0575269.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Miller is substituted for her predecessor as Regional Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. UNITED STATES EPA 6269 ORDER Petitioners' Petition for Clarification is GRANTED. 2007 and reported at 475 F.3d 1096 is hereby amended as follows: 1) On 475 F.3d at 1099. The sentence beginning </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1061a.html">OXY USA INC V. FERC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/024597p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Based on its determination that Horn's claims against TCI are preempted by the express preemption provision in the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1662a.html">SG LOEWENDICK & SONS V. OSHC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ2MTEtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4611-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for review of Zhen Hua Dong is DENIED. Xian Zou's and Shi Liang Lin's petitions are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. . . . we held that a husband whose wife was forcibly sterilized could establish past persecution under this amendment to section 101(a)(42) of the [INA]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-12833.man.html">SMITH V. GTE CORP. (1/4/2001, NO. 99-12833)<BR></A><BR> GTE argued APSC has primary jurisdiction over the claims and that the district court should abstain until the plaintiffs' claims were presented to and reviewed by the APSC. The plaintiffs appealed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-12833.man.html">SMITH V. GTE CORP. (1/4/2001, NO. 99-12833)<BR></A><BR> GTE argued APSC has primary jurisdiction over the claims and that the district court should abstain until the plaintiffs' claims were presented to and reviewed by the APSC. The plaintiffs appealed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. The claim at issue in this case was brought under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></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-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055340p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The fourth claim was for negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiffs also assert that primary jurisdiction was an improper basis for dismissal. That their unjust enrichment claim was improperly dismissed on the ground that they had not pled individual reliance. That they should have been allowed to amend their complaint. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.1 The District Court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) and (6). Which confers federal jurisdiction over class actions where </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></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-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ2MTEtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4611-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for review of Zhen Hua Dong is DENIED. Xian Zou's and Shi Liang Lin's petitions are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. . . . we held that a husband whose wife was forcibly sterilized could establish past persecution under this amendment to section 101(a)(42) of the [INA]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6C787AC61C157D8E88257074005A456D/$file/0355166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question presented is whether California Assembly Bill 1889. Is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.1 As we explain. The California statute chills employers from exercising their free speech rights that are explicitly protected by Congress under the National Labor Relations Act. That the use of the state spending power is rarely a defense to state interference with the National Labor Relations Act. 290 91 (1986) (emphasizing that Congress would not have intended to allow states to interfere with the NLRA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1279.html">PHOENIX PETROLEUM V. U.S.F.E.R.C.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2309.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Either pays the subsidy to the service provider directly (if the approved schools have not already paid in full) or reimburses the schools for part of the cost (if the projects have been approved and the schools have paid the service provider for the work). Who in turn must pass the funds through to the school.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/02-1387a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/002257.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was previously operated as a monopoly overseen by the several states. Conditions of such arrangements are set forth in interconnection agreements established between the carriers. The state utility commissions are empowered. Arguing that they were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The PUC and Verizon each appealed and the appeals were consolidated. We have jurisdiction over the final decision of a District Court. We conclude that the PUC and the Commissioners are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court under the 1996 Act. We will. We will affirm the District Court in part and reverse it in part. Is able to compete with an ILEC without having to bear the prohibitive cost of building its own telecommunications network. Both an ILEC and a CLEC are required to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1327.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Verrill & Dana were on brief. Were on brief. Warn that the final version of a fishery management plan promulgated by the Secretary of Commerce (the Secretary) could have significant adverse effects on the fishing industry in the Northeast and that fishermen caught in the regulatory net will not be able to survive financially. Although we have considerable empathy for the fishermens' concerns. All references herein are to the Magnuson Act. Which was in effect when the challenged rules were promulgated. When a proposed FMP (or a plan amendment) is developed. The Secretary then determines whether the proposed FMP is consistent not only with the Magnuson Act's seven national standards for fishery conservation and management. Which are subject to judicial review. The New England Fisheries Crisis: What Have We Learned? . The class that is relevant here comprises limited access multispecies permits (which. Are subdivided into fleet and individual permits). The amendment L.J. at 223 & n.4 (listing the 13 species included in the groundfish management plan). 5 establishes a vessel tracking system (VTS) that is intended to function by means of electronic devices installed on board vessels with individual permits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1169b.html">ALLI COMMTY MEDIA V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/00-9529.htm">00-9529 -- ST. ANTHONY HOSPITAL V. U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE -- 08/28/2002<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></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-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0065p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Dayton clinic is required to be licensed. WMPC argued that the written transfer agreement requirement was unconstitutional as applied to the Dayton clinic. The case was then transferred to United States District Judge Algenon Marbley. We affirm the district court with respect to its conclusion that WMPC's procedural due process rights were violated. Its director is authorized to establish quality standards. The director promulgated a requirement that ASFs have a written transfer agreement with a local hospital. It is solely within the director's discretion as to whether a variance or waiver should be granted. WMPC is owned by Dr. The Dayton clinic is approximately forty five to fifty five miles away from the next closest abortion clinic in Cincinnati. It is also the only clinic in southern Ohio providing abortion services 1 ASFs are free standing facilities where outpatient surgery is routinely performed. He is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYxMTEgdyAybmQgRXJyYXRhLnBkZg==/02-6111%20w%202nd%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that plaintiffs' possessory land claim is subject to the defense of laches and conclude that the claim must be barred on that basis. Circuit Judge: We are here confronted by land claims of historic vintage the wrongs alleged occurred over two hundred years ago. This action is itself twenty five years old which we must adjudicate against a legal backdrop that has evolved since the District Court's rulings. Determined (1) that treaties between the Cayuga Nation and the State of New York in 1795 and 1807 were not properly ratified by the federal government and were thus invalid under the Nonintercourse Act. That plaintiffs were entitled to about $211 million in prejudgment interest. We conclude that the possessory land claim alleged here is the type of claim to which a laches defense can be applied. We further conclude that plaintiffs' claim is barred by laches. Historical Background Plaintiffs allege that from time immemorial until the late eighteenth century the Cayuga Nation owned and occupied approximately three million acres of land in what is now New York State. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B27E3A2C9C1EBD7388256DE60004738D/$file/0271143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1. ASHCROFT 16579 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D85F5A5809880E29882572720080B03F/$file/0575269.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Miller is substituted for her predecessor as Regional Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. We are presented with a preexisting SIP containing language that prohibits open burning generally and contains no exception allowing farmers to burn the residue left in their fields after harvesting their crops. EPA's approval is legally unsustainable. So that the amendment only clarified what was already the case. This view of the preexisting SIP is one with which we cannot agree. Open burning of agricultural fields is a common practice in Idaho. Crop residue burning is a prevalent agricultural practice and that there is an environmental benefit to protecting water quality from the growing of certain crops in environmentally SAFE AIR FOR EVERYONE v. The administrative record establishes that such field burning is also a source of particulate matter that contributes to air pollution. (3) that some individuals with such ailments have fled their homes during burning season to avoid the smoke. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1048.html">TA CHEN STAINLESS STEEL PIPE, 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="680"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-7143a.html">DIAL A CAR INC V. TRANS INC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0197p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gaynell Metts are disabled individuals who brought this action on September 12. The State of Tennessee Department of * Because the essential character of Tennessee's assessment for disabled parking placards is regulatory. Although Tennessee's assessment was imposed by the Tennessee legislature. The assessment is imposed on only a narrow class of persons. As I have explained. The assessment is connected to the cost of the program. Tennessee's assessment is analogous to a license or permit fee. Which is a paradigmatic regulatory fee. 340 41 (1974) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></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="680"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991991.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 10 the line is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></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="680"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1811a.html">RAPAPORT ROBERT D. V. TREA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2063.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Claiming that these Massachusetts state officers were violating the federal Endangered Species Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C8599301379A3A2988256AE6005BD8E4/$file/0017330.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The United States appeals the district court's decision to abstain from deciding whether the Nevada State Engineer's 14546 denial of the United States' water permit applications is preempted by federal law. We hold that abstention was improper and remand for adjudication on the merits. Substantial amounts of money and effort have been expended to evaluate Yucca Mountain's suitability and to prepare it for use as a repository in the event that the President and Congress ultimately designate it for that purpose. 1 42 U.S.C. §§ 10101 10270 (1997). 2 Id. at § 10131(b)(1). 3 Id. at § 10132(b)(1)(A). Attest that DOE's uses of the water will include. Are not limited to. Nevada law allows the State Engineer to deny a permit application for only three reasons: (1) there is no unappropriated water at the proposed source. Or (3) the proposed use threatens to prove detrimental to the public interest.5 Because the parties stipulated that sufficient water was available and no one claimed to have conflicting rights. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/031889P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is our court's second consideration of Iowa laws regulating the construction of natural gas pipelines. We held that Iowa statutes regulating the safety of interstate natural gas pipelines were preempted by federal law. Were not severable from the safety provisions. Were thus preempted as well. Are subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Such certificates are granted only when the FERC finds that a company is willing and able to comply with the requirements. The company was authorized to do so under a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A8DEA501CD6318F88256E5A00707D09/$file/0017330.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The United States appeals the district court's decision to abstain from deciding whether the Nevada State Engineer's 14546 denial of the United States' water permit applications is preempted by federal law. We hold that abstention was improper and remand for adjudication on the merits. Substantial amounts of money and effort have been expended to evaluate Yucca Mountain's suitability and to prepare it for use as a repository in the event that the President and Congress ultimately designate it for that purpose. 1 42 U.S.C. §§ 10101 10270 (1997). 2 Id. at § 10131(b)(1). 3 Id. at § 10132(b)(1)(A). Attest that DOE's uses of the water will include. Are not limited to. Nevada law allows the State Engineer to deny a permit application for only three reasons: (1) there is no unappropriated water at the proposed source. Or (3) the proposed use threatens to prove detrimental to the public interest.5 Because the parties stipulated that sufficient water was available and no one claimed to have conflicting rights. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzODUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6385-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1137p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether the Secretary acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving amendments that eliminate the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200512/04-1154a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the brief for intervenor. With him on the briefs were Giovanni P. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5248a.html">REPUB NATL COM V. FEC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></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="674"></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="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1053.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The mandate is issued forthwith. Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8ECCEFBA99CFD46488256D780079CDA9/$file/0235042.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Should have heeded Henry David Thoreau's warning to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-1053a.htm">01-1053 -- GONZALES V. CITY OF CASTLE ROCK -- 10/15/2002<BR></A><BR> Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></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="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-12809.opn.html">BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES (1/10/2002, NO. 00-12809)<BR></A><BR> We are asked to review two orders of the Georgia State Public Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2098.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. * Chief Judge Stephen Breyer heard oral argument in this matter. Were on brief for appellees. Plaintiffs appellants are a group of residents of Condominium Bah a A. The residents did not have a protected property interest in continued water service and. Show 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/00-15927.opn.html">PITTMAN V. COLE (10/3/2001, NO. 00-15927)<BR></A><BR> The court declined to address whether there was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0943p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who purchased or otherwise beneficially acquired securities that were incorrectly and misleadingly labelled or described as annuities from Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company during the period August 14. Because all of these claims were essentially grounded in fraud. Because federal jurisdiction over one of the claims is exclusive and there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the remaining claims. We hold that the district court erred when it concluded that there is an opportunity for timely and adequate state court review of Plaintiffs' federal securities claims. We will therefore reverse the district court's order dismissing Plaintiffs' case without prejudice and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[fn2] I. General Background Mutual Benefit was established in 1845. It was one of the country's largest life insurance companies. Until the late 1970's Mutual Benefit was a relatively conservative institution. These withdrawals were projected to reach $1 billion by the end of the year. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-6142.htm">02-6142 -- BARTLETT MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER V. THOMPSON -- 10/20/2003<BR></A><BR> This litigation was successful. The Plaintiff Hospitals in this case sought to have cost reports from the early 1990s reopened and adjusted to reflect the new interpretation. Their requests were denied because of Ruling 97 2's instruction that reports could not be reopened with respect to the DSH reimbursement. The Secretary argues there is no other jurisdictional basis to hear these claims. Primarily contending that the district court should also have found federal question jurisdiction. <p> Because we find that the Secretary did not owe any clear. We REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment to Plaintiffs and its denial of summary judgment to the Secretary because we determine that Plaintiffs cannot prevail as a matter of law on any of their claims.<strong></strong> <ol> <li><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></li> </ol> <p> Plaintiffs are or operate Oklahoma for profit. Is the agency of HHS responsible for administering the Medicare program. <p> Some of the hospital services provided by Plaintiffs are covered by Medicare. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/00-15927.opn.html">PITTMAN V. COLE (10/3/2001, NO. 00-15927)<BR></A><BR> The court declined to address whether there was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042550p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Citizens allege that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/58807F3D4237981088256C4B007B3701/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitions for rehearing en banc were circulated to the full court and no judge requested a vote on the petitions. Lodi's motion for judicial notice in support of its petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED. 2002 and reported at 2002 WL 1792612 is hereby amended as follows: At page *17. That MERLO's provisions dealing with cleanup procedures are preempted by CERCLA only to the extent that they permit Lodi to order use of procedures more stringent than the NCP </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs are a collection of associations and individuals led by the American Civil Liberties Union. Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims. Of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-12809.opn.html">BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES (1/10/2002, NO. 00-12809)<BR></A><BR> We are asked to review two orders of the Georgia State Public Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></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="669"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/98-4158.htm">98-4158 -- AMERICAN TARGET ADVERTISING, INC. V. GIANI -- 01/13/2000<BR></A><BR> Background</strong> <p> American Target is a Virginia corporation that provides fundraising services to nonprofit organizations. The corporation is under contract to provide such services to Judicial Watch. American Target is classified as a professional fundraising consultant under the Utah Charitable Solicitations Act. 13 22 9. <p> American Target has not complied with the registration requirements and is therefore barred from assisting Judicial Watch with its mailing in Utah. Because nothing in the record indicates that the Act will have any different impact upon interests not before this court. We analyze both prongs of the First Amendment challenge as they are presented under the facts of this case. <u>City Council of L.A. v. We will then decide if the provision is unconstitutional on its face. Where expressive activity is arguably protected by the First Amendment. We conclude that all but three of the challenged provisions are consistent with the First Amendment. <p> Charitable solicitations qualify as protected speech for First Amendment purposes. <u>Village of Schaumburg v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962164.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Published opinion filed 5/13/98 is vacated. As the event's organizers were beginning plans for the motorcycle rally. Captain Doug Horton of the SDPS was informed that organizers expected up to 3500 participants. Sought Horton out and advised him that an unidentified friend at work had told McKinney that an unidentified person had reported to McKinney's friend that a confrontation at the Rally between the Hell's Angel and Pagan gangs was planned. Horton was further advised that gang members could not be visually identified because it was planned that they would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/415240927EA7598F88256CCC005B6A86/$file/0070724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DEA2D7F81F74610E88256CCD006116F2/$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="669"></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="669"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-5354a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1484.html">HUAIYIN FOREIGN TRADE CORP V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> For plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>John C. For defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>On the brief were <u>Robert D. Senior Trial Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>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.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>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.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>See</u> 62 Fed. 348.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Huaiyin 5 was among the companies able to show an absence of state control and thus received a company specific 91.5 percent <u>ad valorem</u> duty margin.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Id.</u> at 41. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></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="666"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/032347P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The policies are reinsured by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></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-6.gif" ALT="666"></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-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYxMTFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6111_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that plaintiffs' possessory land claim is subject to the defense of laches and conclude that the claim must be barred on that basis. Circuit Judge: We are here confronted by land claims of historic vintage the wrongs alleged occurred over two hundred years ago. This action is itself twenty five years old which we must adjudicate against a legal backdrop that has evolved since the District Court's rulings. Determined (1) that treaties between the Cayuga Nation and the State of New York in 1795 and 1807 were not properly ratified by the federal government and were thus invalid under the Nonintercourse Act. That plaintiffs were entitled to about $211 million in prejudgment interest. We conclude that the possessory land claim alleged here is the type of claim to which a laches defense can be applied. We further conclude that plaintiffs' claim is barred by laches. The Cayuga Nation owned and occupied approximately three million acres of land in what is now New York State. Successive versions of the Act have been continuously in force from that time to the present day. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-3192.htm">99-3192 -- MARTIN V. STITES -- 02/13/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> We must decide on appeal whether county established towing policies are preempted by federal law. Holding the sheriff's policies are not preempted by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/20ADC1B137F0613D882571EF0077D396/$file/0355166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question before us is whether a state's exercise of its sovereign power to control the use of its funds conflicts with national labor policy as expressed in the National Labor Relations Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1652p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contends that the EPA's final rule is invalid because the EPA did not comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although we are sympathetic to the view expressed by many within the Area that this rule threatens serious economic harm. We recognize that our role as a reviewing court is strictly limited. We are constrained to deny the petition for review. The Act authorizes the EPA to identify air pollutants that are sufficiently dangerous to warrant federal regulation. Which is the maximum allowable concentration of the pollutant in the ambient air. One pollutant for which the EPA has promulgated a NAAQS is ozone. Whose chemical precursors are emitted by industrial and transportation sources. That site is in noncompliance with the NAAQS. If one monitoring site within an area is in noncompliance with a NAAQS. Then the entire area is designated a nonattainment area for that pollutant. Nonattainment areas are further classified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D29A5C3876E991CB88256BED006F110A/$file/0115449oa.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2002 is amended as follows: At slip opinion page 5765. The fourth sentence that begins </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1678p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was abducted. The members of the community were unaware of the accused murderer's history. Forty nine states had adopted sex offender registration laws and thirty two states maintained some form of community notification program. 6 We have before us challenges to the constitutionality of the notification requirements of New Jersey's Megan's Law based on the Ex Post Facto. The issues before us are difficult but relatively narrow. We are not called upon to decide whether Megan's Law can constitutionally be applied to one who has committed one of the designated sex crimes after its enactment. Is it our responsibility to determine whether the policy judgments reflected in Megan's Law are prudent ones. Public reaction to Megan's murder was intense. The Law and Public Safety Committee held a hearing upon pending legislation that pre dated Megan's Law and would have required victim notification on the release of offenders. Registration and community notification bills identical to their General Assembly counterparts were introduced in the Senate on September 12. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2304.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Dwyer & Collora were on brief. We affirm the district court's finding that the law interferes with the foreign affairs power of the federal government and is thus unconstitutional. We further find that the Massachusetts Burma Law violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal sanctions against Burma. There is one matter on which the parties are agreed: human rights conditions in Burma are deplorable. Final determination as to whether a company is in fact </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></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-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1074.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for respondent. Adams has not persuaded us that he was wrongfully denied an evidentiary hearing or that the Agency otherwise erred in its treatment of his objections. Because Seabrook's septic systems were failing. Effluent was flowing into Seabrook's coastal waters. Will consist of a collection and transportation system. The plant will discharge its treated effluent in approximately 30 feet of water. No pollutant may be emitted into this nation's waters unless a NPDES permit is obtained. NPDES permits are issued by the EPA or. Whether a discharge will cause </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034433p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 an association of law Joining FAIR in its preliminary injunction motion and in this appeal are: the Society for Law Teachers. We hold that FAIR has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claims and that it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Background Facts 2 and Procedural Posture Law Schools' Nondiscrimination Policies Law schools have long maintained formal policies of nondiscrimination that withhold career placement services from employers who exclude employees and applicants based on such factors as race. The facts on appeal are not in dispute. Supp. 2d at 277. 7 2 virtually every law school now has a comprehensive policy like the following: [The] School of Law is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all students and graduates. A servicemember is separated from the military if it is found that he or she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1652p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contends that the EPA's <p>final rule is invalid because the EPA did not comply with <p>the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although <p>we are sympathetic to the view expressed by many within <p>the Area that this rule threatens serious economic harm. <p>we recognize that our role as a reviewing court is strictly <p>limited. We are constrained to deny the petition for <p>review. <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7359A7FF884F8D0D88256F26008260BF/$file/0315178.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Three autistic children (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001277.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> AT&T contends that it did not violate the FMLA because the illness for which Miller sought FMLA leave an episode of the flu was not a serious health condition as defined by the Act and implementing regulations. That if Miller's flu was a serious health condition under the applicable regulations. Those regulations are contrary to congressional intent and are therefore invalid. AT&T claims that the award should have been limited by after acquired evidence and Miller's failure to mitigate her damages.1 We conclude that none of AT&T's challenges warrants reversal. There is no reason to disturb the award of attorneys' fees. 2 An </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/06D97F07AF20A33288256C0C007D9461/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052785p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> REAL VEBA is a multipleemployer/employee welfare benefit trust. Who are beneficiaries of the REAL VEBA Trust. Koresko is the sole shareholder in Koresko and Associates. 4 Community Trust Company (CTC) is state chartered trust company. It is the trustee of REAL VEBA and maintains an account in REAL VEBA's name. CTC claims that the subpoena requires it to disclose documents which are either personal financial records of REAL VEBA beneficiaries or copies of documents which the Secretary has already received from the respondents in Koresko.3 Therefore. CTC argued that the Secretary could not enforce the subpoena because REAL VEBA is not covered by ERISA and. Because the scope of the investigation is beyond the Secretary's investigatory authority. CTC is forbidden by the GLBA and the RFPA from releasing the information. CTC has appealed the District Court's rulings that DOL did not need to establish jurisdiction and that REAL VEBA is not protected by the RFPA. The Secretary of Labor has broad authority to conduct investigations to determine whether any person has violated or is about to violate Title I of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1134. 6 4 The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></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="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1518.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were William B. Of counsel was Abraham W. McDermott Will & Emery LLP. With them on the brief were Charles Rosenberg and Cynthia A. BACKGROUND Optivus and Loma Linda are the purported exclusive licensee and assignee. The '287 patent is directed to a proton beam therapy facility that The generates a proton beam and delivers it to one of multiple treatment rooms. treatment rooms are equipped with movable gantries that enable an operator to direct the beam to a patient at a specific angle. The proton beam therapy system is illustrated in figure 1 of the '287 patent. Which is reproduced below. 05 1518. 1575 2 Claim 1 of the '287 patent is the only independent claim and provides. Transporting the proton beam away from the axis of rotation and returning the proton beam on a path perpendicular to and intersecting the axis at a target isocenter within the patient whereby with rotation of the gantry the proton beam is delivered to the target isocenter from several different angles and ... a control system for the proton beam therapy system including an operator controllable means for (1) selectively switching the first switching magnet between its first and second states and (2) controlling the rotational position of the first gantry to direct the proton beam exiting the first switching magnet in its first state to the target isocenter for the first treatment station along one or more controlled angles. 05 1518. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></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="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5278b.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Solomons argued the cause for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5278a.html">NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION V. DEPT OF MINING<BR></A><BR> Solomons argued the cause for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1572p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case comes before us a second time for a determination whether New Jersey's regulation of the disposal of solid waste is constitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Are Atlantic Coast Demolition & Recycling. The latter two plaintiffs are. The defendants are the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The Carbone plaintiffs and the defendants have appealed the district court's decision. We will affirm the district court's findings that New Jersey's flow control laws and regulations are unconstitutional insofar as they discriminate against out of state waste processing facilities. We will not. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. I. FACTS As this nation's prosperity and consumption have increased over the years. States have attempted to meet those concerns by limiting or banning the importation of solid waste. States and municipalities have erected barriers to the exportation of solid waste in the hope that in state control of solid waste facilities will protect their communities from environmental harm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2411.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></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-6.gif" ALT="658"></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="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1999.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tocci and Glovsky & Associates were on brief. Was on brief. Circuit Judge. is currently serving two concurrent. Naming as respondents the superintendent of the state correctional facility where he is confined. These appeals have their genesis in events that occurred over a quarter century ago. Is available in Commonwealth v. These consecutive sentences were to be served </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/95-9505.wpd.html">COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. FEDERAL ENERGY REG. COMM'N<BR></A><BR> Because CIG is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/95-6429.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALA.(6/26/1998, NO. 95-6429)<BR></A><BR> BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries.</P> <P> 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.</P> <P> Body was employed as a senior auditor by BCBSA in 1984. Was assigned to audit the 1983 cost reports of. Reversed his proposed adjustments.</P> <P> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-1429.htm">03-1429 -- MAINSTREAM MARKETING SERVICES INC. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION -- 02/17/2004<BR></A><BR> The primary issue in this case is whether the First Amendment prevents the government from establishing an opt in telemarketing regulation that provides a mechanism for consumers to restrict commercial sales calls but does not provide a similar mechanism to limit charitable or political calls.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1086p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As such terms are defined and determined under applicable State law. Section 1821(k) was passed by Congress in response to the enactment by various states. Concluding that the enactment of § 1821(k) supplanted any available federal common law actions for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.[fn1] Courts of appeals that have considered these issues have concluded that § 1821(k) does not preempt state law. We will affirm the district court's order in the United Savings action and reverse the court's order in the City Federal action. (7) failing to require and verify that necessary permits and approvals were obtained before funding the loans. At issue in these appeals is whether Congress. As we have stated. The question of the interpretation of § 1821(k) is one of first impression in this circuit. Our review of the construction of federal statutes is plenary. A. The Plain Meaning of the Statute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></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="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5035.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Jason P. The claim at issue in this case was brought under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/95-6429.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALA.(6/26/1998, NO. 95-6429)<BR></A><BR> BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries.</P> <P> 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.</P> <P> Body was employed as a senior auditor by BCBSA in 1984. Was assigned to audit the 1983 cost reports of. Reversed his proposed adjustments.</P> <P> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/772DBEE0A970D8DC88257060004C8055/$file/0535264.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended. Is deleted and replaced by the following footnote 17: 17. USDA instituted a policy of barring the importation of ruminants1 and ruminant products from countries where BSE was known to exist. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE was first diagnosed in England in the late 1980s. It conRuminants are hoofed mammals generally defined by their fourchambered stomachs and their practice of chewing a cud consisting of regurgitated. BSE is a species of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></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-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1994/94a0762p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/98-8696.man.html">AYRES V. GEN. MOTORS CORP. (11/29/2000, NO. 98-8696)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3162.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Petitioner Cassandra Augustine was successful in her appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/98-8696.man.html">AYRES V. GEN. MOTORS CORP. (11/29/2000, NO. 98-8696)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-5278a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Laura Metcoff Klaus. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. With him on the brief were Grant Crandall and Judith Rivlin. The case will be remanded to the District Court with instructions to re mand the case to the Department of Labor for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Background The BLBA is a federally administered law providing bene fits to coal miners who are totally disabled due to pneumoco niosis. Coal mine operators are responsible for paying benefits to miners whose death or total disability due to black lung disease arose out of employment in the mines. 30 U.S.C. s 932. It is caused by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-5278b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Laura Metcoff Klaus. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. With him on the brief were Grant Crandall and Judith Rivlin. The case will be remanded to the District Court with instructions to re mand the case to the Department of Labor for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Background The BLBA is a federally administered law providing bene fits to coal miners who are totally disabled due to pneumoco niosis. Coal mine operators are responsible for paying benefits to miners whose death or total disability due to black lung disease arose out of employment in the mines. 30 U.S.C. s 932. It is caused by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3A12983071711CF4882570490055E969/$file/0535264.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> USDA instituted a policy of barring the importation of ruminants1 and ruminant products from countries where BSE was known to exist. We reverse.2 Ruminants are hoofed mammals generally defined by their fourchambered stomachs and their practice of chewing a cud consisting of regurgitated. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE was first diagnosed in England in the late 1980s. BSE is a species of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0044p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It did not begin the statutory process for determining whether vehicles carrying such brakes were noncompliant or the statutory process for ordering a recall of vehicles with these brakes. Which are based in part on Air Brake's representations about its antilock brake system and which NHTSA acknowledges are neither binding on the industry nor entitled to any administrative deference. The first Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard was promulgated in 1967 and NHTSA has promulgated numerous other standards since then. Buses and trailers equipped with air brakes have an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6D86FE52B4E4EBBE88256CDF00834482/$file/0150633.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FBI Special Agent David Bowdich was assigned to investigate a series of bank robberies that occurred in San Diego in 1997 and 1998. Bowdich received information from an unnamed source that a person known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan97/96-2162.wpd.html">PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA V. KELLY<BR></A><BR> Give life to a compact which was void from its inception because the state governor who signed the compact lacked the authority under state law to sign on behalf of the state. Vivify that which was never alive. Pueblo of Taos are federally recognized Indian tribes in New Mexico. Plaintiff and appellant San Felipe Gaming Enterprise Board is a gaming enterprise chartered under the laws of the Pueblo of San Felipe.(1) The Tribes have been operating casinos and other gaming facilities in New Mexico. Lacked the authority to do so and at least suggested that New Mexico law did not permit the kind of gambling they were conducting. Seeking a declaration that the Tribes were conducting gambling in violation of federal and state law. Joined the State of New Mexico as a party.(2) (1) We will hereafter refer to the Pueblo tribes as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/943609P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of recklessly causing the death of her child. Persons act recklessly when they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/97-9556a.htm">97-9556A -- HRI, INC. V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- 01/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/97-9556.htm">97-9556 -- HRI, INC. V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- 01/06/2000<BR></A><BR> The effect of state adjudications against a tribe on EPA's authority to assess whether lands are Indian country. Dismissing in part and remanding in part. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4AF470DEE51F871D88256B9C007E0A4F/$file/0115449.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) is a joint exercise of powers agency composed of over a dozen Northern and Central California municipalities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. All facts alleged in TANC's complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to it. Which was to be constructed by defendant Sierra Pacific. If the Alturas Intertie is operating at its maximum 300 MW capacity. Alleging that the Alturas Intertie would create a megawatt formegawatt reduction in the capacity of the California Oregon 2 The Pacific AC Intertie is located south of the California Oregon border and is owned by utilities not parties to this litigation. It was already connected to the Northwest AC Intertie. TANC requested that FERC ensure that procedures were put in place to protect the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1759.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arnold III were on consolidated brief. Were on brief. LLP were on brief. Berry & Howard were on brief. PSNH is New Hampshire's largest electric public utility and supplies approximately 70% of the citizenry's power needs. Because state law prevented it from factoring the plant's construction costs 1Three of the would be intervenors also have attempted to take protective appeals from other orders entered by the district court. Management's forecast that Seabrook would be on line in 1979 proved much too sanguine: construction of the plant's generating unit was not completed until 1986. Commercial operation was infeasible. The State's participation was essential to resolving the bankruptcy: as a regulated utility. The Plan provides that the PUC will continue to set all distribution access rates. Unbundling will enable customers to select from a roster of power generators whose rates will reflect market prices. The Plan seeks to have the PUC exercise a modicum of control in this area as well by directing utilities to obtain PUC approval of proposed tariffs prior to effecting FERC filings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0854C811179B91CC88256F4A000156D0/$file/0335381.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The International Fuel Tax Agreement is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/97-3313.htm">97-3313 -- MARCUS V. STATE OF KANSAS DEPT. OF REVENUE -- 03/23/1999<BR></A><BR> The Department of Justice developed regulations requiring that where parking is provided for public buildings. That are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part. <p> <u>Id.</u> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/003690.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The pro se prisoner's claim of ownership was dismissed as untimely. At issue is whether to apply the prison mailbox rule. 1992 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3160.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. An employee who serves in one of several specified positions is entitled to an annuity upon retirement after completing 20 years in such a position if the employee retires after reaching age 50. Those early retirement benefits were accorded to employees who completed the required years of service as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2083.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief. Were on brief. Thomas Dutkiewicz was fired by his employer. After he repeatedly complained he felt his supervisors were pressuring him to violate Department of Transportation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5059.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Lisa M. Of counsel on the brief was Daniel I.S.J. With him on the brief was Sue Ellen Wooldridge. The threshold question in this case is whether the Navajo Nation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061780p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dirk Kempthorne is substituted for his predecessor. Brent Wahlquist is substituted for his predecessor. This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment by the District Court sustaining two decisions of the United States Department of the Interior. Delete a required amendment that was codified at 30 C.F.R. § 938.16(h). We conclude that the agency's decisions were inconsistent with its own regulations and regulatory obligations. We will therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court. Plaintiffs in this case are several nonprofit public interest organizations. They will be referred to collectively as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5104.html">CIENEGA GARDENS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3108.html">JOHN J. GALLAGHER V. DEPT OF TREASURY<BR></A><BR> Argued for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0075A714947A9E4888256C3E0058A053/$file/0135033.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1653p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Davises argue that the district court erred by concluding they lacked prudential standing to pursue their claims because their rights were not within the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1653p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Davises argue that the district <p>court erred by concluding they lacked prudential standing <p>to pursue their claims because their rights were not within <p>the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2047.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Anne Robbins and Palmer & Dodge LLP were on brief for appellees. Holding that HCFAR 96 1 was a substantive. The court also found that the equipment in dispute was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988696.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is an interlocutory appeal by Defendants Appellees General Motors Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2046.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1993 is corrected as follows: On page 5. We now conclude (1) that there is no compelling reason. (3) that appellant's arguments on the merits are unavailing. Rodriguez was admitted to Doctor's Hospital complaining of numbness in her limbs. (CIS was joined as a defendant pursuant to Puerto Rico's direct action statute. Fragoso speculated that the letter may have been delivered during the spring of 1985. She now concedes that it was delivered on January 16. 1985. 2When summary judgment was entered. Lopez and CIS were the sole remaining defendants. They are. That proceedings herein be stayed pendente lite pursuant to a provision of Puerto Rico's Insurance Code.4 We granted an interim stay of proceedings and requested 3The original order was soon amended and we refer herein to the amended version as the Liquidation Order. Be remitted to the Liquidator . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></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="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM4ODctcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3887-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the constitutionality of New York's DNA statute is properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/11/032105P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court in Iowa dismissed the Chapman case on the ground that the commonlaw claims were preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200517164.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is the question. Are the Alabama sturgeon and the shovelnose sturgeon separate species? Which one observer has noted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/92-6574.opa.html">SWINT V. CITY OF WADLEY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Swint v. Was filed by four citizens against the City of Wadley. Before us is the appeal of Chief Morgan. Also before us is the request by the City of Wadley and the Chambers County Commission that we exercise jurisdiction under either the collateral order or pendent appellate doctrines to review the district court's denial of their summary judgment motions. The City contends the district court should have held that the Chief of Police did not have final decisionmaking authority over the relevant actions. Thus the City was not liable for his conduct. The County Commission contends the court should have held that under Alabama law the Sheriff was not the final repository of county law enforcement authority. Thus the County was not liable for his actions. The district court's denial of their summary judgment motion as to the state law claims against them.<p> We affirm the district court's denial of the individual defendants' qualified immunity summary judgment motions insofar as the Fourth Amendment is concerned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0B2D3557486B9D488256E31005D99FA/$file/0236000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. It was across the street from a gravel pit. The landfill operation was approved initially and then overseen by District 7 Health Department according to an Operational Plan as required by Idaho regulations. Responsibility for regulatory oversight of solid waste facilities is split between the State Department of Environmental Quality ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1473.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bates was on brief for the Ellenwoods. Was on brief for the State of Maine. McGill were on brief for Exxon Shipping Company. Was removed from his position as chief engineer of another Exxon oil tanker. Relying primarily on the company's previous written policy that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/92-6574.opa.html">SWINT V. CITY OF WADLEY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Swint v. Was filed by four citizens against the City of Wadley. Before us is the appeal of Chief Morgan. Also before us is the request by the City of Wadley and the Chambers County Commission that we exercise jurisdiction under either the collateral order or pendent appellate doctrines to review the district court's denial of their summary judgment motions. The City contends the district court should have held that the Chief of Police did not have final decisionmaking authority over the relevant actions. Thus the City was not liable for his conduct. The County Commission contends the court should have held that under Alabama law the Sheriff was not the final repository of county law enforcement authority. Thus the County was not liable for his actions. The district court's denial of their summary judgment motion as to the state law claims against them.<p> We affirm the district court's denial of the individual defendants' qualified immunity summary judgment motions insofar as the Fourth Amendment is concerned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/953203P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FDIC's determination 2 was based on an improper interpretation of federal law and unsupported by the record. Enforce the order if the FDIC made no errors of law and if its findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Substantial evidence is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972554.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 2 the first amicus curiae is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BBAF3C4AD260891188256D60006E97BD/$file/0271143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are presented with constitutional and regulatory challenges to the Board of Immigration Appeals' ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may96/93-4634.ma2.html">MOTORCITY OF JACKSONVILLE V. SOUTHEAST BANK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Motorcity of Jacksonville v. Southeast orally assured Motorcity that its personnel were experienced with floor plan financing and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></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="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may96/93-4634.ma2.html">MOTORCITY OF JACKSONVILLE V. SOUTHEAST BANK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Motorcity of Jacksonville v. Southeast orally assured Motorcity that its personnel were experienced with floor plan financing and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2286.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 28. 1995 is corrected as follows: On the cover sheet. Will & Emery were on brief. Attorney General of Massachusetts was on brief. United States Environmental Protection Agency were on brief. Turns largely on the question of whether FFC is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/044DE357BD726D7288256DF10063BDE4/$file/0255082.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are legal and social service organizations and two individuals who seek to provide </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1656.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Harrow</U> was on brief. Were on brief. Which entitles litigants who prevail against the government to attorney's fees unless the position of the United States was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/051152P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1634.html">CONSOLIDATED BEARINGS COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>On the brief was <u>David M. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel were <u>John D. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>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).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>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.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>See</u> 19 U.S.C. § 1673e (2000). Each participating importer of FAG manufactured AFBs received a new specific duty rate.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Information concerning Consolidated s imports and the reseller that export </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></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="636"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/98-1359a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney General at the time the briefs were filed. With her on the brief was Grant Crandall. We nevertheless conclude that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under the collateral order doctrine. The Secretary determines that the provi sions of this subsection have been violated. Determines that the provisions of this subsection have not been violated. The complainant shall have the right ... to file an action in his own behalf before the Commission. If the charges are sustained. Their complaints would have to be in writing and hand delivered. The two claims were assigned to an Adminis trative Law Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DD8893470EEE7EBD88256D2700010D4B/$file/0270336.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contend that the restructuring was designed to shield assets worth millions of dollars from creditors. (4) the Commission's decision that the corporate reorganization was consistent with the public interest was supported by substantial evidence and was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE3NTQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1754-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeking damages that were unavailable in the CCHRO proceedings: attorney's fees. Punitive 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 damages (collectively referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1053.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991905.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-14590.man.html">DOE V. BUSH (8/14/2001, NO. 99-14590)<BR></A><BR> The first appeal is from a contempt order entered on October 7. The second appeal is from a class certification order entered on February 11. There are a number of issues. All of which we will discuss in the course of this opinion. Suffice it to say that we have concluded that the district court's finding of contempt. Are due to be reversed. The case remanded to the district court which will then have an opportunity to more clearly define the obligations it intends to impose upon the defendants.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE5ODMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1983-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tribune is in violation of the FCC's newspaper/broadcast cross ownership rule. After the last temporary waiver had expired and while Tribune's application for the permanent waiver was pending. Although we are sympathetic to Ellis's frustration in the face of agency inaction. That the same entity may own or control two television stations in the same market so long as: (i) at the time the application is filed. At least one of the stations is not ranked among the top four stations in audience rankings in the DMA. (Transferor) & Tribune Television Co. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 November 16 application sought a waiver of the television duopoly rule.2 While Tribune's application was pending. Although WTXX is not ranked among the top four stations in the Hartford New Haven DMA. Eight independently owned and operated television stations would not have remained in this DMA after Tribune's proposed acquisition. Operates or controls a daily newspaper and the grant of such license will result in: . . . (3) The Grade A contour of a TV station. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></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-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Ernest M. With him on the brief were Eileen J. This is the second appeal in an action by John Greene ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2076.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Meagher & Flom were on brief. Frazier were on brief. Sanchez Betances & Sifre were on brief. McConnell Valdes were on brief. BACKGROUND This is presumably the final skirmish in a decade long conflict. Other jousts are chronicled in a series of published opinions. We believe that a condensed summary of the hostilities will suffice for the nonce. Although bureaucrats are reputed to abhor a vacuum. Ostensibly concerned that the oil companies were taking unfair advantage. Since large oil companies are not in business to lose money. A wholesaler could choose between paying a refund based on a retrospective GPM of 13 per gallon for the injunction period or paying one based on whatever profit margin would have allowed it to achieve an annual return on assets equal to the average return on assets for the electric utility industry. The wholesalers were not mollified. It revivified the court action originally instituted by the oil companies and filed a motion for restitution seeking an award equal to the excess profits that the wholesalers would have been forced to disgorge 2We refer to the three oil companies collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/723A7E489D2CA38288256EAC0057C41B/$file/0235761.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2004 17:26:46 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwMzggdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-9038%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The areas to be inspected were a residential dock and adjacent areas located on tidal wetlands off the rear portion of Palmieri's backyard. Palmieri's claim is one essentially sounding in trespass quare clausum fregit that has escalated into a constitutional claim of Fourth Amendment violations only because the trespassers were representatives of a state government regulatory agency. Entry of these state actors was responsive to Palmieri's desire to obtain a necessary permit to conduct construction work on his property. That the agents were dispatched by Palmieri within minutes of their entry and that no damage was done might have justified the disposition of this case by application of the maxim de minimis non curat lex. Because of the 1 1 2 3 John Doe #1 is presumably the intern who accompanied Lynch on her inspection. We are constrained to undertake the more elaborate analysis that follows. The property is situated on Long Island's Great South Bay and encompasses both New York State regulated tidal wetlands and a regulated adjacent area. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8E6D00949CDFE6D38825705B004F17C8/$file/0316194.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm the district court's conclusion as to preemption under the Bank Act but hold that the per diem loan interest statute is not preempted by the DIDMCA. The purpose of the audits was to ascertain whether the mortgage subsidiaries had overcharged interest and provided unduly low estimates of certain classes of settlement fees. 3 WFHMI was licensed to engage in real estate lending activities under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (CRMLA). Wells Fargo's claims as to WFHMI are not moot. Even if they were. There is no distinction between WFHMI and NCMC pertinent to our disposition. 4 Specifically. Unless a person or transaction is excepted from a definition or exempt from licensure by a provision of this law or a rule of the commissioner. The licensing requirements referred to in the section are discussed in more detail below. 5 The CFLL does not apply to any loans made pursuant to the CRMLA. BOUTRIS Commissioner is the state official charged with enforcing those laws governing licensed home mortgage lenders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/92-9121.man.html">ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. V. FED. ENERGY REGULATORY COMM'N (5/14/1998, NO. 92-9121)<BR></A><BR> The plant was built by its corporate predecessor near Southern's mainline system in order to obtain the most direct natural gas service available. <EM>See Arcadian Corp. v. Arcadian sought direct service from Southern which would have necessitated the construction of approximately 140 feet of connecting pipeline to physically link Arcadian's plant with Southern's pipeline. Contending that its decision not to provide direct service to Arcadian was a business decision that did not violate the NGA or its tariff.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1395a.html">WORLDCOM, INC., ET AL V. FCC<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Ian Heath </p> <p> . With her on the brief </p> <p>were Christopher J. Petitioners maintain that </p> <p>the Order is arbitrary. Deaveraging </p> <p>of rates was neither arbitrary and capricious nor contrary to </p> <p>law. The FCC made a reasonable policy determination that </p> <p>collocation was a sufficient proxy for market power in deter </p> <p>mining whether to grant pricing flexibility to LECs and </p> <p>sufficiently explained the basis for its decision to grant imme </p> <p>diate pricing flexibility for some services. It is </p> <p>within this evolving regulatory context that this case arises.</p> <p>1. Interstate Access Services</p> <p>Local telephone service is provided by local exchange carri </p> <p>ers. 47 U.S.C. s 153(26). One LEC is the domi </p> <p>nant. The incumbent LECs had virtual </p> <p>monopolies over the provision of local phone service in their </p> <p>territories.</p> <p>Long distance service that is. Service is. Long </p> <p>distance providers are reliant upon LECs to reach their </p> <p>customers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5223a.html">AMFAC RESORTS, L.L.C V. U.S. DEPT OF INTERIOR<BR></A><BR> Geller argued the cause for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-14590.man.html">DOE V. BUSH (8/14/2001, NO. 99-14590)<BR></A><BR> The first appeal is from a contempt order entered on October 7. The second appeal is from a class certification order entered on February 11. There are a number of issues. All of which we will discuss in the course of this opinion. Suffice it to say that we have concluded that the district court's finding of contempt. Are due to be reversed. The case remanded to the district court which will then have an opportunity to more clearly define the obligations it intends to impose upon the defendants.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/01-5223a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were David M. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: These are four consolidated cases on appeal from the judgment of the district court sustaining regulations of the National Park Service governing concession contracts in the National Park System. Many of the issues are tied to the history of the National Park System and the functions concessioners perform in the operation of the parks. The history begins with the discovery of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/99-8089.htm">99-8089 -- STATE OF WYOMING V. U.S. -- 02/07/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/001589.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In these proceedings Hydro contests the finding of liability while Doyle contends that the ARB should have awarded him a tax enhancement to compensate for the burden of receiving a lump sum award of back pay. We will grant Hydro's petition. We will dismiss Doyle's petition as moot. Factual History The factual synopsis we detail below is not controverted. The pay rate for this job was to be modest. Their clients for whom the investigation is being performed and any organization listed above furnishing or receiving any information pertaining to me from any and all liability or claim as results [sic] of furnishing or receiving such information pursuant to this authorization. Hydro Nuclear Services is authorized to utilize the information it obtains for the purpose of evaluation. Doyle's concern largely was attributable to his belief that his former employer. Implicitly was included in the release. [Hydro] in requiring all employees including[Doyle] to sign its release was exercising an essential step in performing its duty of responsible investigation and screening of employees. 6 JA at 10 11. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4295.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although the decision to enforce a non final tribal court judgment is a matter of discretion. Federal courts will ordinarily err on the side of enforcement of such judgments in the name of comity. We will not enforce a tribal court judgment. The regulatory authority of the tribe is often the issue which looms largest. This case is no exception. These appeals require us to examine the regulatory authority of the Navajo Nation over the activities of a nonmember of the tribe when the regulated entity is another independent sovereign acting in its governmental capacity. Although the district court's judgment was ultimately in their favor. The preliminary injunction is interlocutory in nature. Much of the preliminary injunction is now moot. Defendants are nearly all entitled to sovereign immunity. The specific defendants in that case relevant to these appeals were as follows: San Juan County. SJHSD is a special service district organized pursuant to Utah Code § 17A 2 1304 (1999). Is tasked with providing health care services to the citizens of San Juan County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-8057.wpd.html">V-1 OIL CO. V. MEANS<BR></A><BR> Concluding that Means was entitled to qualified immunity because the stop and inspection did not violate clearly established law. Or that this inspection was not within the ambit of the Fourth Amendment. We affirm on other grounds the district court's conclusion that Means was entitled to qualified immunity because the stop and inspection did not violate clearly established law. Ann. 31 5 959(b)(2) to be on all vehicles transporting hazardous materials was peeling and becoming hard to read. Means told Richards the truck was looking a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200102/99-1395a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Ian Heath Gershengorn. With her on the brief were Christopher J. Petitioners maintain that the Order is arbitrary. Deaveraging of rates was neither arbitrary and capricious nor contrary to law. The FCC made a reasonable policy determination that collocation was a sufficient proxy for market power in deter mining whether to grant pricing flexibility to LECs and sufficiently explained the basis for its decision to grant imme diate pricing flexibility for some services. It is within this evolving regulatory context that this case arises. 1. Interstate Access Services Local telephone service is provided by local exchange carri ers. 47 U.S.C. s 153(26). One LEC is the domi nant. Long distance service that is. Service between local access and transport areas ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/023843P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The companies are referred to as local exchange carriers or LECs. Is also a LEC to the extent that it supplies local telephone service in many Iowa communities. Qwest is not a member of INS. No longer was the local market to be viewed as a natural monopoly with only one authorized provider of local telephone service. Which was previously operated as a monopoly overseen by the several states. The state commissions in regulating local telephone markets and the competing providers of telephone services in those markets is at the heart of this case. There are two types of charges which one carrier can extract from another for the provision of telecommunication services. One of the primary purposes of the 1996 Act was to promote competition in the local telephone service market. The amount an ILEC can charge for allowing a competitor to use its infrastructure to deliver a local call is to be determined by an interconnection agreement negotiated (or imposed by arbitration) between the ILEC and the interconnecting carrier that has been approved by the state commission. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/92-9121.man.html">ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. V. FED. ENERGY REGULATORY COMM'N (5/14/1998, NO. 92-9121)<BR></A><BR> The plant was built by its corporate predecessor near Southern's mainline system in order to obtain the most direct natural gas service available. <EM>See Arcadian Corp. v. Arcadian sought direct service from Southern which would have necessitated the construction of approximately 140 feet of connecting pipeline to physically link Arcadian's plant with Southern's pipeline. Contending that its decision not to provide direct service to Arcadian was a business decision that did not violate the NGA or its tariff.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943158.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That judgment followed a jury trial and was entered in favor of plaintiffs Morley's Auto Body. The main question presented in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case is whether two wrecker service companies. We hold that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that they had a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We will reverse the judgment of the district court with respect to the procedural due process claim. We will affirm the district court's judgment as to it. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY County sheriffs' offices and other law enforcement agencies that are called to the scene of automobile accidents and breakdowns regularly summon wreckers to tow away disabled vehicles. These calls or referrals are an important source of business for wrecker service companies. Maintains a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1382a.html">TRKR UNITED SFTY V. FHA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2323.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> was on brief. P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. This appeal is an early round in the legal battle over whether a commercial wind energy farm may be built in Nantucket Sound.</P> <P> In October 2002. Ten Taxpayer argues that the district court was obligated to remand the case to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm. </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/94-3158.opa.html">MORLEY'S AUTO BODY V. HUNTER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morley's Auto Body v. That judgment followed a jury trial and was entered in favor of plaintiffs Morley's Auto Body. The main question presented in this 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1586p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeal is from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. We will affirm as to the Fourteenth Amendment causes of action. Will reverse and remand for fact finding as to the First Amendment claim and the related state law claim. FACTS Defendant New Jersey Racing Commission is a body created by N.J. Defendant Francesco Zanzuccki is the Executive Director of the New Jersey Racing Commission. Defendant Michael Vukcevich is the Deputy Director of the New Jersey Racing Commission. Latessa was licensed by the United States Trotting Association as an Associate Judge with powers to officiate as a judge at harness horse meets. Latessa was first appointed by the Commission as Presiding Judge at Garden State Park in 1988 and was also appointed to that position at the Meadowlands Race Track ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/94-3158.opa.html">MORLEY'S AUTO BODY V. HUNTER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morley's Auto Body v. That judgment followed a jury trial and was entered in favor of plaintiffs Morley's Auto Body. The main question presented in this 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961251.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is not to predict what the Supreme Court might do but rather to follow what it has done. I. John West and his fellow plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Anne Arundel County Fire Department. They are known as Emergency Medical Technicians. Each was assigned to the Fire Department's Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Division in the job classification of Firefighter/ Emergency Medical Technician Ambulance. Once they were assigned to the EMS Division. Plaintiffs worked the same shift schedule and were integrated into the same command structure as other firefighters. EMTs were generally prohibited from active participation in fire suppression in order to keep clean for their medical duties. Was governed by the same 7 union contract. Firefighters and EMTs were compensated for overtime hours according to the partial exemption for fire protection and law enforcement employees in section 7(k) of the FLSA. Or Paramedics were exempt from overtime requirements as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEyMjQtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1224-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-2096.htm">01-2096 -- COUNTY OF SANTA FE V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW MEXICO -- 11/26/2002<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="628"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956429.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956429.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1320.html">ULEAD SYSTEMS, INC. (A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION), ET AL. V. LEX COMPUTER AND MANAGEMENT CORP.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff cross appellant and cross defendant cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Jon E. Argued for defendant/cross claimant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>   </span>With him on the brief was <u>Jeffrey G. 188 ( the 188 patent ) is unenforceable and expired because Lex falsely claimed status (and paid maintenance fees) as a small entity.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Lex also appeals the district court s award of attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C. § . A Taiwan corporation ( U </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-3042.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://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1D4C2285FE9C71388256A7E000000C2/$file/9871087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher was drawn to replace him. I. The BIA's factual determinations are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. We may reverse if the evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude that a well founded fear of persecution has been established. Lal was a prominent member of the Fijian Labor Party. The Labor Party was successful in its 1987 electoral bid. Which was controlled by members of the native Fijian population. Lal was dragged from his 1 The application for asylum is based on Mr. Since the applications of both his wife and child are derivative of his claim. We will focus on Mr. He was placed in detention and held for three days by the army. Explaining that his treatment was in retaliation for his work on behalf of the Labor Party. Lal was stripped of his clothes. Urine was forced into his mouth. He was cut with knives and singed with burning cigarettes. He was deprived of food and water. Lal was in jail. Sometime after he was released from detention. Lal was forced to watch the assault at gunpoint. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CF724444F7850F888256AED005BBF95/$file/9871087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher was drawn to replace him. ORDER The Government's petition for rehearing is granted to the extent set forth following. Add a footnote at p. 8391 at the end of the last sentence before section </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/E20BC6A38029FDAE88256E5A00707D1B/$file/9871087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher was drawn to replace him. ORDER The Government's petition for rehearing is granted to the extent set forth following. Add a footnote at p. 8391 at the end of the last sentence before section </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1400.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pollock & Sheehan were on brief. Dean & Wilder were on brief. This determination is tinged with more than the usual quotient of public interest. We set aside the district court's determination that the parties' dispute over the applicability of state jurisdiction is not yet ripe for adjudication and hold that Congress's grant of jurisdiction to the state in the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1978. That the Narragansetts have concurrent jurisdiction over. Are entitled to invoke the Gaming Act. The former is impliedly repealed. We affirm both the district court's directive that Rhode Island enter into 2 good faith negotiations to draft a tribal state compact under which gaming operations can be mounted and its refusal to grant relief to various governmental figures and entities who have challenged the Tribe's entitlement to the extraordinary prophylaxis of the Gaming Act. THE SETTLEMENT LANDS We begin with a thumbnail sketch of how the land mass that is the breeding ground for this dispute came to be held in trust for the Tribe. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D5923F77193B69A88256E5A00707BC6/$file/9871087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher was drawn to replace him. I. The BIA's factual determinations are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. We may reverse if the evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude that a well founded fear of persecution has been established. Lal was a prominent member of the Fijian Labor Party. The Labor Party was successful in its 1987 electoral bid. Which was controlled by members of the native Fijian population. Lal was dragged from his 1 The application for asylum is based on Mr. Since the applications of both his wife and child are derivative of his claim. We will focus on Mr. He was placed in detention and held for three days by the army. Explaining that his treatment was in retaliation for his work on behalf of the Labor Party. Lal was stripped of his clothes. Urine was forced into his mouth. He was cut with knives and singed with burning cigarettes. He was deprived of food and water. Lal was in jail. Sometime after he was released from detention. Lal was forced to watch the assault at gunpoint. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/63E10539AB01C82D8825707600147873/$file/0435287.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We again are asked to decide whether a provider of payphone services may sue a long distance carrier to recover compensation that federal regulations. The circumstances have changed materially: since our decision in Greene. Which was made without the participation of the Federal Communications Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1D5C522EC6F6559188256D01005F825E/$file/0117161.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All local exchange carriers are required to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2371.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Howard were on brief for appellant. This is an appeal BOWNES. Cumberland was a debtor in possession in a Chapter 11 reorganization proceeding. The appellee is the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). It is the regulatory agency in charge of administering certain Florida environmental statutes including the maintenance of USTs for petroleum and petroleum products. As was that of the district court. Is de novo. Together 2 2 Cumberland does not claim that summary judgment was inappropriate. The relief sought is not a new hearing but summary judgment in its favor. There was an average of three tanks per location. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR> The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1874.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dyer was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. CMI claimed that because CMI provides workers' compensation benefits through a welfare benefit plan that is covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTE0NDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1445-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On 1 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503 1 was significantly amended in 2000. All references to the regulation in this opinion are to the 1999 version. Nichols argues that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5178a.html">ACTION FOR CHILDS TV V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR> The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1592.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 37 at line 10. Lynette Labinger with whom Roney & Labinger was on brief for appellants. & Murphy was on brief for Milton W. Lowe </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/001659.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the plain language of S 208.15 makes clear that the prime factor in the firm r esettlement inquiry is the existence of an offer of permanent resident status. We reject an alternative </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-1383a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O:\Slip\WP\2005\05 1383 Village of BENSENVILLE 9 7 06.odl.wpd
620 OPINION/ORDER
Profession or trade
620 OPINION/ORDER
I. Facts and Procedural History Ann Stehney is a mathematician. The Institute is a private think tank that conducts cryptological research the making and breaking of secret codes as a contractor for the National Security Agency. NSA must ensure that access to classified information is
620 OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs have frequently sought damages from affiliated corporations. Plaintiffs with claims arising from non WARN Act sources of law against debt laden or bankrupt corporations have occasionally attempted to sue the corporations' major secured lenders. On the theory that the lenders have exercised such control over the corporations that veil piercing is appr opriate. The question before us is whether the for mer employees of Component Technology (CompTech). Have set forth sufficient evidence to cr eate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether . Requires us to consider not only the prerequisites for parent/subsidiary liability in the WARN Act context (as will be shown. That 2 jurisprudence is apposite here). Courts have been extr emely reluctant to hold lenders liable for their borrowers' actions. Some version of the
620 O:\CUMMING\05-1054--CITY OF TACOMA WA V. FERC\FINAL OPINION.WPD

With them on the briefs were Michael A. With him on the brief were John S. With her on the brief was M. Squire was on the brief for intervenors American Rivers. This license was designated a
620 OPINION/ORDER
The court also found that such a claim of preemption is not barred by the Tax Injunction Act. The court also found that such a claim of preemption is not barred by the Tax Injunction Act (
620 OPINION/ORDER
Which are known also as
620 OPINION/ORDER
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.

617 A. BACKUP DOCUMENTATION, MOTIONS, ORDERS, AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS97-2064 -- U.S. V. GONZALES -- 07/28/1998

If there is a right of access.
617 OPINION/ORDER
Luckerman was on brief. Russell was on brief. Were on brief. We reverse.

617 OPINION/ORDER
Galeota and Jan Amundson were on brief. Were on brief. A damage 1 A
617 OPINION/ORDER
That statement was wrong. The appeals were a day late. The cover letters sent by the Service noted that appeals had to be lodged within 45 days of the decisions' publications and also noted the precise date when appeals were due. The date was incorrect. The Service nevertheless dismissed their appeals because their submissions were late. The 45 day appeal period was equitably tolled. The Forest Service was estopped from dismissing their appeals. We cite to the 2001 Code of Federal Regulations when considering the regulations in force at the times in question. 4 No. 03 4041 jurisdiction over the action because the plaintiffs did not have standing to seek such redress in a federal court. The Service further submitted that the plaintiffs were not entitled to equitable tolling or equitable estoppel. Bensman could have filed the appeals on time. The court found no evidence of deliberate misconduct on the part of the Forest Service and held that equitable estoppel was inapplicable. Have standing to maintain this action.
617 OPINION/ORDER
Functions of the court have been merged by steps into a unified state court system. We hold that suit is not barred. Because we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact. We will reverse the granting of summary judgment by the District Court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Was stopped by officers of the Princeton Police Department. The 3 bench warrant was issued in 1990 because Chisolm failed to attend an intoxicated driver resource program. The program was required as part of his sentence following a 1987 guilty plea to driving under the influence. He was taken to the Mercer County Detention Center (MCDC) to await extradition to Bucks County. He was admitted to MCDC at 3:40 p.m on Saturday afternoon. Was a maximum security. It housed detainees who were awaiting extradition to other states or were awaiting trial on indictable charges. They were generally processed within a few hours. Newly arrived detainees were
617 OPINION/ORDER
Presiding *Lawrence Wasden is substituted for his predecessor. We conclude that the statute's definition of
617 OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the decision of the district court. 1. Is hereby declared to be illegal.
617 LOHR V. MEDTRONIC, INC.

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Lohr v. We hold that Appellants' negligent manufacture and failure to warn claims are preempted and affirm their dismissal. We also hold that Appellants' negligent design and strict liability claims are not preempted and therefore reverse their dismissal.<p> I. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Because an understanding of the MDA's regulatory scheme is necessary to resolve the question of preemption. We begin with a brief outline of the Act.<p> A. <i>The Regulatory Scheme</i><p> <p> The market for medical devices was largely unregulated at the national level until the MDA's passage in 1976. The text of the MDA reveals two competing congressional purposes relevant to this case:<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200112/00-5266a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Richard E. With him on the brief was John F. Gaine was on the brief for amicus curiae Man aged Funds Association. Because the regulation of their advertising practices was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986598.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. I. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/94-2516.opa.html">LOHR V. MEDTRONIC, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lohr v. We hold that Appellants' negligent manufacture and failure to warn claims are preempted and affirm their dismissal. We also hold that Appellants' negligent design and strict liability claims are not preempted and therefore reverse their dismissal.<p> I. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Because an understanding of the MDA's regulatory scheme is necessary to resolve the question of preemption. We begin with a brief outline of the Act.<p> A. <i>The Regulatory Scheme</i><p> <p> The market for medical devices was largely unregulated at the national level until the MDA's passage in 1976. The text of the MDA reveals two competing congressional purposes relevant to this case:<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986598.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/04-5350a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O:\Slip\WP\2005\04 5350 Abigail Alliancea28a.odl.wpd
615 OPINION/ORDER
They contend that the rule is a legislative rule that is subject to the notice and comment procedure required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Respondent contends that the rule is an interpretive rule. It is a legislative rule. Should have been subjected to notice and comment procedures. We must ask whether we have jurisdiction to hear this case under the administrative appeal provision of the Controlled Substances Act. Except that any person aggrieved by a final decision of the Attorney General may obtain review of the decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or for the circuit in which his principal place of business is located upon petiWhile the Administrative Procedures Act labels such rules
615 OPINION/ORDER
While Dismas does have standing under the notice and comment requirements for informal rulemaking contained in § 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (
615 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. The basic issue on this appeal is whether the federal government has waived its sovereign immunity from punitive fines and various monetary fees imposed upon federal facilities under a state hazardous waste law. If the district court's determination concerning waiver of sovereign immunity is upheld. The Navy will pay Maine: 1. 1319 I(1)(A) (fee of 2 per pound for
615 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: At slip op. page 10. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. 1724 BOTSFORD v. The physician who had performed Botsford's procedure was a non participating provider. The court reasoned that Botsford's complaint was inherently a dispute over a contract. Any claim purportedly based on that preempted state law is considered. Is therefore preempted by. FEHBA's preemption provision was narrower. It specified that only state and local laws and regulations that were
615 OPINION/ORDER
We hold that the Telecommunications Act does not prevent the PUC from exercising its express statutory authority under Section 214(e) of the Act in a way that affects the interstate components of services offered by carriers who are otherwise subject to the PUC's jurisdiction. We also conclude that Section 214(e) governs ETC
designations and does not require state commissions to issue rules and regulations regarding the conditions that are imposed on a carrier seeking ETC designation. Services and rates in rural and high cost areas that are comparable to other areas. 47 U.S.C. 254(b). This funding is distributed as public subsidies to telecommunications carriers who apply for and receive designation as ETCs. 47 U.S.C. 214(e). ETCs are eligible to receive the subsidy by committing to offering the
615 96-1443 -- YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION V. METRO TAXI INC. -- 12/23/1997

Hold that the PUC's action was a valid exercise of its regulatory power and. Was exempt under 11 U.S.C.
615 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Ronald E. With him on the brief was W. The Commis sion responds both that it has the jurisdiction to review the award and that the award was improper because the conduct of the Secretary in the underlying litigation was
615 WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE V. U.S.

Argued for defendant appellee.
615 OPINION/ORDER
(3) the companies were jointly and severally liable for response costs incurred by the Ellises under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Concluding that the consent decrees and state administrative proceedings precluded the PSD claims and that the CERCLA claim was meritless. The private plaintiffs have not shown that they were entitled to injunctive relief and have not shown that they complied with the notice requirements of the Clean Air Act. Gallatin and Harsco are separate legal entities. They have experienced more respiratory problems. The federal Clean Air Act is a model of cooperative federalism. 335 (6th Cir. 1989) (EPA approved state implementation plans are enforceable in federal court). The Clean Air Act allows citizens to file actions to enforce its provisions when two requirements have been met. Citizens cannot commence their own suits unless they have given 60 days' notice to the Administrator of the EPA. Citizens cannot commence independent suits if the EPA or the State has already commenced an enforcement action and is diligently prosecuting the violation.
615 OPINION/ORDER
Rosenthal P.C. were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Participating hospitals which retain ownership of the capital assets used to provide services to their Medicare recipients are entitled to periodic reimbursement for estimated actual depreciation on those assets. A hospital which has closed would be eligible for further depreciation reimburse ments from HHS on a Medicare related capital asset which was sold within one year after its closure for less than its depreciated basis. HHS regulations allowed hospitals forty five days after their withdrawal from the Medicare program to submit a The HHS depreciation methodology is similar to that utilized for federal tax purposes. Since HHS already would have reimbursed the hospital $40. Were the asset to sell for only $500. The HHS regulations likewise allow hospitals a three year period within which to reopen and amend a final cost report which was timely filed. The Trustee obtained two extensions of the forty five day filing deadline from the bankruptcy court and the Hospital's final cost report was submitted to HHS within the extended deadline.
615 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
615 OPINION/ORDER
It is ORDERED that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion in United States v. After the comma insert
615 OPINION/ORDER
Line 11
612 OPINION/ORDER
The district court lacked jurisdiction because the action was not brought as an appeal of an agency decision pursuant to IGRA § 2714. We hold that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the action and we affirm the dismissal. The other half shall be paid into the Treasury for the use of the Indian or tribe by or for whom it was so paid. 3 Management Company (
612 SHELL OIL CO V. FERC
612 OPINION/ORDER
000 of the punitive damages were allocated to Oregon's Criminal Injuries Com ENGQUIST v. Contending that the constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. Contending that a jury verdict from a coworker's similar trial in state court should have been given preclusive effect. Or that it should have been admitted into evidence. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and cross appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that Engquist's constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Engquist was hired in 1992 as an international food standards specialist for the Export Service Center (
612 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Were on brief. The federal Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA or Act) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prescribe criteria specifying when public water systems are
612 MICROSOFT WORD - 05 CV 3823 U.S. V. ST. REGIS MOHAWK FINAL.DOC

The district court lacked jurisdiction because the action was not brought as an appeal of an agency decision pursuant to IGRA § 2714. We hold that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the action and we affirm the dismissal. The other half shall be paid into the Treasury for the use of the Indian or tribe by or for whom it was so paid. 3 Management Company (
612 MICROSOFT WORD - 05 CV 3823 U.S. V. ST. REGIS MOHAWK FINAL.DOC

The district court lacked jurisdiction because the action was not brought as an appeal of an agency decision pursuant to IGRA § 2714. We hold that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the action and we affirm the dismissal. The other half shall be paid into the Treasury for the use of the Indian or tribe by or for whom it was so paid. 3 Management Company (
612 02-2254 -- RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW V. KEYS -- 06/12/2003

Senior Circuit Judge.

612 A. LASHAWN V. BARRY JR. MARION S.
612 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This case involves two airline pilots who have been charged with violating Florida criminal statutes prohibiting the operation of an aircraft while intoxicated. They assert that the Florida statutes at issue are preempted by federal law. Because we find the preemption claims in the instant case are not facially conclusive. We hold that the district court should have abstained. The pilots were instructed to taxi back to the gate. Whereupon they were interviewed by MiamiDade police officers. Approximately two hours later were taken to a MiamiDade police station where the officers administered breathalyser tests to both appellees. The breathalyser results were 0.084 and 0.081 breath alcohol level for Hughes and 0.091 and 0.090 breath alcohol level for Cloyd. Appellees were subsequently charged with operating an aircraft while intoxicated. Appellees claimed that federal law preempted the Florida state statutes under which appellees were being prosecuted and therefore the district court should.
612 OPINION/ORDER
Magill was an active judge at the time this case was submitted and assumed senior status on April 1. Before the opinion was filed. 1 2 MAGILL. I. The Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe2 (Tribe) is a federally recognized Indian Tribe which occupies the Fort Totten Reservation (Reservation). Approximately three fourths of the reservation is held in fee by non tribal members. 000 acres are either held in trust for the Tribe by the United States. 958 (D.N.D. 1995) (Devils Lake). 2 The Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe was previously known as the Devils Lake Sioux 3 Tribe. Electricity consumers on the Reservation have received electrical services from three utilities companies: (1) Otter Tail. The North Dakota Public Service Commission (NDPSC) is a state administrative body which regulates investorowned electric utilities in North Dakota. Alleging that the NDPSC did not have jurisdiction over the Reservation. Because the Tribe was not a party to the proceedings. The court held 5 that Otter Tail did not have standing to argue that the NDPSC's assertion of jurisdiction over the Reservation would impair tribal sovereignty.
609 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Petitioners1 challenge the Department of Transportation's The petitioners in this case are Public Citizen. The combined effect of which will permit Mexico domiciled motor carriers to operate within the United States beyond the current limited border zones. The Department of Transportation decided that there was no need for further environmental analysis. It is useful to examine the legal and regulatory context in which they were promulgated. We will refer to them (as well as the Petitioners Intervenors. Our existing governmental institutions are not adequate to deal with the growing environmental problems and crises the Nation faces.
609 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Benjamin F. The Secretary argues that the District Court erred in concluding that the milk cooperatives were
609 OPINION/ORDER
When it vacated a restrictive covenant attached to their property that was designed to preserve the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. Was unconstitutional because it does not require the Commission to follow the procedures set forth in the state's eminent domain statute for determining public use. William and Judy Daniels (
609 APOTEX, INC V. TOMMY THOMPSON

Argued for plaintiff appellant.  With him on the brief were Terrence P. Canade and Hugh S. Balsam.  Of counsel on the brief was Arthur Y. Et al.  With him on the brief were Eric M. DC.  On the brief for defendants appellees were Douglas N. On the brief were Bruce N. Weiswasser.  Of counsel was Stephen T. Demonstrating through the presentation of test data that the drug in question is safe and effective.  21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(1)(A).

            Before 1984. 98 Stat. 1585.  The Hatch Waxman Act authorized a company to obtain FDA permission to market a generic version of an approved drug by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application ( ANDA ).  If the ANDA establishes both that the active ingredient in the proposed drug product is the same as the active ingredient in the previously approved drug and that the proposed product is bioequivalent to the approved drug.

609 OPINION/ORDER
Although under certain circumstances concerns about federal question jurisdiction will preclude federal courts from hearing a case where there is no federal private right of action. The following facts formed the basis of the lawsuit: Smart is the
609 98-5222 -- OXY USA, INC. V. BABBITT -- 10/10/2001

Circuit Judge.

609 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were William R. With her on the brief were Thomas L. Of counsel on the brief was Jason Roberts. Are not money mandating for purposes of the Samish claims. These claims are not within the trial court's Tucker Act or Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction. That the Samish claims to federal benefits for the 1969 to 1996 period are not time barred. We therefore reverse the dismissal of count two on limitations grounds and remand for further proceedings to determine whether the remaining statutes underlying the claim are money mandating. That but for federal misconduct they would have received federal benefits since 1969. The counterfactual ­ that they would otherwise have been acknowledged ­ is the first element to their claims for benefits between 1969 and 1996. For thirty three years the Samish have. More generally concerning the justiciability of federal recognition. 04 5042 2 Federal recognition or acknowledgement is a prerequisite to an Indian tribe's right to claim benefits under federal statutes. 25 C.F.R. § 83.2 (2005).
609 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Melissa E. Stahl was on the brief for amicus curiae Burlington Resources. Glaze were on the brief for amici curiae in support of appellees. Which is largely absent from conventional natural gas. Mainline natural gas pipelines will not accept gas with a carbon dioxide component of more than two to three percent of volume. They must use the mainline and meet its more stringent carbon dioxide standard. 3 The federal government is a large landowner in the San Juan Basin and. The relationship between the government and those who extract gas from the government's land is regulated pursuant to an elaborate array of statutes and rules. The Secretary of the Interior is directed by statute to establish a comprehensive inspection. A factor in calculating these
607 OPINION/ORDER
That is intended to protect aquatic organisms from being harmed or killed by cooling water intake structures at large. While we conclude that certain aspects of the rule are based on a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Water Act and supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Several aspects of the rule are not consistent with the statute. Are not supported by sufficient evidence. Or were not properly subject to notice and comment. We therefore grant in part and deny in part the petitions for review and dismiss in part one aspect of the petitions for lack of jurisdiction because there is no final agency action to review. Circuit Judge: This is a case about fish and other aquatic organisms. 1 that is intended to protect fish. Concluding that certain aspects of the EPA's rule are based on a reasonable interpretation of the Act and supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Remanding several aspects of the rule because they are inadequately explained or inconsistent with the statute.
607 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellee. Claiming that it was unlawfully deprived of the right to use seaplane ramps in the Virgin Islands and that the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) failure to enforce the law makes it responsible for the company's resulting economic hardship. I. Background The original protagonist in this case was Hurricane Hugo. One of the eight companies that responded was 1 Congress in 1994 recodified the Federal Aviation Act. Will use the code numbers in effect at the time of the events that gave rise to this action. 2 Caribbean Air Services. It is undisputed that VIPA's staff considered the CAS proposal to be the most viable of the three bids recommended for further consideration by VIPA's Governing Board. Are fully detailed in the district court's thorough opinion in a related case. It is unnecessary to repeat them here. It suffices to say that appellant Sea Air was displeased with the outcome of the bid process. With the court ruling in March 1992 that VIPA was entitled to enter into an exclusive leasing arrangement with CAI.
607 OPINION/ORDER
Judge Berzon was drawn to replace Judge Henry A. Adopted for this litigation for reasons that will appear assert that they performed espionage activities on behalf of the United States against a former Eastern bloc country. The United States will neither confirm nor deny the Does' allegations. Their action is either appropriate only in the Court of Federal Claims or precluded by the venerable doctrine enunciated in Totten v. That the facts as alleged by the Does are true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to their case. Are all. The Does allege that they were citizens of an Eastern bloc country formerly considered an adversary of the United States. Doe approached a person **Part II of the opinion is authored by Judge Canby. The Does recount that after this request was made. The Does further allege that the agents assured them that this assistance was approved at the highest level of authority at the CIA and was mandated by U.S. law. The Does state that although they were initially reluctant to conduct espionage activities.
607 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: A perceptive governor once noted:
607 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the briefs were Elaine D. The Final Rule Fails to
607 TODD R. HAEBE V. DEPT. OF JUSTICE

Argued for respondent.
607 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Thomas G. Klee were on the brief for amici curiae Senator Robert G. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief were Michael F. Is bound by the usual rules governing the treatment of such obligations in bank ruptcy. Con gress also directed the Commission to
607 OPINION/ORDER
This appeal primarily presents an issue that divides sister Courts of Appeals and is of first impression in our court namely. Dismissed the remaining defamation action on the ground that the alleged defamatory statements were not sufficiently directed toward the plaintiff so that a jury could reasonably conclude that they referred to him. Our standard of reviewing the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss is plenary. Shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law. Are to leave regulation and taxation of the insurance business to the states and to ensure that
607 OPINION/ORDER
Who is facing removal to Haiti. Claims that he will be indefinitely detained upon his arrival in Haiti in prisons that are notorious for their brutal and deplorable conditions that have been compared to those existing on slave ships. There is no doubt that the prison conditions that Auguste and others like him may face upon their removal to Haiti are indeed miserable and inhuman. We find that Auguste is not entitled to relief. We will affirm the decision of the District Court. Is a native and citizen of Haiti who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on December 8. Auguste was convicted of Attempted Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance (cocaine) in the third degree in Queens County. Auguste argued that he was entitled to a deferral of removal on the grounds that he faces torture in Haiti because. He will be detained by Haitian authorities for an indeterminate amount of time in harsh and intolerable prison conditions. Who have incurred a criminal record while residing in the United States and who have already served their sentences.
607 BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. TOWN OF PALM BEACH (5/25/2001, NO. 99-14272)

To answer two questions pertaining to § 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:(1) what is the preemptive scope of § 253. Because amendments were made to relevant state laws after the district court rendered judgment. Congress announced that it was passing
607 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
607 OPINION/ORDER
Sitting by designation.
jurisdiction over CWA citizen enforcement actions when a state has commenced and is diligently prosecuting the same violations under a state law
607 NEXT WAVE PRSNAL COMM V. FCC

Olson argued the cause for petitioners/appel lants.
607 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.
607 OPINION/ORDER
Which made a notable ruling that defendant appellant Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (
607 HOUSTON OIL V. U.S.F.E.R.C.
607 BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. TOWN OF PALM BEACH (5/25/2001, NO. 99-14272)

To answer two questions pertaining to § 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:(1) what is the preemptive scope of § 253. Because amendments were made to relevant state laws after the district court rendered judgment. Congress announced that it was passing
607 96-3250 -- ANR PIPELINE CO. AND COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. LAFAVER -- 07/21/1998

The plaintiffs' suit is not saved by the Ex parte Young doctrine.

604 01-9512 -- GEMAN V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION -- 07/07/2003

Geman was a registered broker dealer and investment adviser. He was also the chief executive officer of a firm called Portfolio Management Consultants. Geman was found to have violated several provisions of the securities laws. The SEC affirmed all of the findings of violations but reduced the sanctions imposed.
604 ELIAS V. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
604 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. PSC were on brief. They are joined by an intervenor. Two questions of statutory interpretation one critical to the resolution of these appeals and another of potential significance were not addressed below. We do not have a fully developed record to assist us in their resolution.
604 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.
604 OPINION/ORDER
(5) the Official Committee's motion to intervene should have been allowed. Pinewood is located in Sumter County. Is within 1200 feet of Lake Marion. Safety Kleen was required to apply for a new hazardous waste permit from DHEC. DHEC scheduled a public hearing and solicited comments on whether and under what conditions Safety Kleen was entitled to a final permit to operate Pinewood. It did not specify whether nonhazardous An acre foot is the volume of water necessary to cover one acre to a depth of one foot. It is equal to 43. Safety Kleen agreed not to apply for additional landfill space until Pinewood was within three years of reaching its capacity. Was not binding on either the hearing officer or the DHEC Board. Was prospective only. While Safety Kleen was not pleased with the Board's decision to reject the separate cap for nonhazardous waste. Safety Kleen estimated that Pinewood would have between four and one half to six years of unused space left under the permit. The Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the state Senate. 2 SAFETY KLEEN.
604 OPINION/ORDER
We must decide whether Section 360k(a) preempts common law tort claims regarding medical devices that have entered the market pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration's (
604 OPINION/ORDER
The physician who had performed Botsford's procedure was a non participating provider. The court reasoned that Botsford's complaint was inherently a dispute over a contract. Any claim purportedly based on that preempted state law is considered. Is therefore preempted by. FEHBA's preemption provision was narrower. It specified that only state and local laws and regulations that were
604 OPINION/ORDER
USFWS 3229 ORDER Defendant appellee's Petition for Rehearing En Banc Regarding Remedy is GRANTED. Is amended as follows: In Section IV of the en banc court's opinion. After the paragraph concluding
604 OPINION/ORDER
Who are licensed merchant marine officers. 98 Stat. 2863 (1984) (current version at 46 U.S.C. § 2114 (2002)).2 The plaintiffs claim that they were discharged in retaliation for engaging in statutorily protected correspondence with the United States Coast Guard (
604 OPINION/ORDER
James Toupin are not absolutely immune from Goldstein's Bivens claim for damages. 1 and because the district court did not separately consider whether the defendants are immune from suit for declaratory relief. Goldstein is an attorney admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the
604 OPINION/ORDER
I. EMS is not part of the County's fire or police departments but a separate and independent subdivision of the County's Public Safety Division. Six of those substations are housed with the area's fire department. The individual substations are manned at all times by a
604 OPINION/ORDER
That order was made pursuant to the district court's exercise of jurisdiction following state court proceedings after we ordered abstention according to the doctrine promulgated in Burford v. I. We are very familiar with the factual background underlying this action and will not recite it in full yet again. That were annexed by the Town in 1978 pursuant to the order of a Virginia Annexation Court. The last time IPC was before us. We envisioned that IPC should seek whatever remedy was appropriate under Virginia's Annexation Court scheme as well as whatever other state remedies might be available. § 11 to those who have been unlawfully deprived of their property. Id. at 764 65. 1 IPC's case was consolidated with a companion case filed the same day by Fred and Gladys McLaughlin. Fred McLaughlin was the sole shareholder of IPC. 2 Although we previously labeled the various decisions in this lengthy litigation differently. This is far from a normal case. We believe it is necessary to address whether federal jurisdiction remains given the events and court dispositions that have transpired in the interim. 4 A.
604 OPINION/ORDER
These two Offers to Dedicate were exacted by the County in return for granting permits to Johnson to divide and then to build on the property. All three Offers to Dedicate were matters of public record. Said offer shall be a firm continuing offer of dedication which is not rejected or vitiated by failure to accept or purported rejection for a period of 25 years. Of the burden of maintenance of the easement and the beach area to which access is provided. Johnson appealed the imposition of this Firm Continuing Offer to Dedicate (
604 OPINION/ORDER
Reiterating those claims and asserting that the district court should have admitted the deposition testimony of the president of the Iowa Lottery Authority (the Lottery). A TouchPlay machine is
604 OPINION/ORDER
By offending its mandate to preserve the
604 GREENBRIAR V. US

On the brief was R. With him on the brief was David . Because the trial court correctly determined that the United States was not in privity of contract with the Owners and therefore could not be held liable for breach of such contracts. Correctly determined that the Owners takings claim is not ripe for review. The petition for class certification is moot.

604 95-9525 -- MAIER V. U.S. EPA -- 05/28/1997

Maier contended that recent developments in municipal wastewater technology have rendered the EPA's regulations for secondary treatment inadequate. A
604 OPINION/ORDER
For relief from certain actions and inactions by the City that Andreano claims have prevented him from developing a parcel of his property in Westlake. That were based on the City's filing
604 OPINION/ORDER
Anna Marie Bowling Irrevocable Trust Page 2 The district court found that Spectrum's lien on the proceeds of a malpractice settlement was valid and enforceable. Therefore is invalid. Spectrum argues that the issue of the validity of the lien is precluded by two prior state court judgments approving the malpractice settlement. We conclude that the issue is not precluded by either of the state court judgments. That the lien on the settlement is prohibited by federal and state Medicaid law. I. BACKGROUND The material facts in this case are undisputed. Bowling has little or no control of her limbs and is unable to speak. Spectrum is the parent company of a group of providers of sub acute rehabilitation and nursing services. Bowling was admitted to GVHC in December 1998. The total customary cost of Spectrum's services provided to Bowling during the time she resided at GVHC was $639. The 1 It is unclear from the record how Bowling's co payments factor into the shortfall. Spectrum states that its total customary cost was $639.
604 MURATORE V. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (8/15/2000, NO. 99-2307)

1215 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that
604 MURATORE V. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (8/15/2000, NO. 99-2307)

1215 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that
604 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.'
601 97-6389 -- STATE OF OKLAHOMA V. U.S. -- 12/03/1998

Oklahoma's open record laws and federal legislation preventing disclosure of information contained in motor vehicle records are in conflict. Any public official who willfully violates the state's open records policy is subject to both criminal and civil liability. Id. . The question presented is whether the DPPA is a valid exercise of congressional power to which contrary state law must yield consistent with constitutional principals of federalism and the Tenth Amendment's reservation to the States of all
601 OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were Joshua B. With them on the briefs were Albert S. With her on the brief were R. With him on the brief were Christopher J. Weber were on the brief of Shipper Intervenors in support of respondent with respect to arguments of SFPP. This case is the latest chapter in a long running dispute over SFPP's tariffs. The shipper petitioners are BP West Coast Products. (3) the Commission erroneously held that certain shippers were not entitled to reparations for rates charged on SFPP's East Line after August 1. SFPP and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines have intervened on behalf of the Commission with respect to these issues. 4 SFPP and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines have also crosspetitioned for review of the three challenged orders. The shippers have intervened on behalf of the Commission regarding these issues. We hold that the Commission's income tax allowance policy was not arbitrary or capricious or contrary to law. We also hold that FERC's interpretation of the Energy Policy Act was reasonable.
601 OPINION/ORDER
Held that the district court should have dismissed the treaty based claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thereby breaching its fiduciary responsibilities to the Tribe under the Treaty. [1] These claims are not properly brought under the FTCA. Would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (emphasis added).2 The Tribe's claims against the United States are properly characterized not as tort claims. The claims are thus quite different from those in cases like Berkovitz v. Which was rejected on November 20. The Coast Guard acted negligently in its operation of a lighthouse because it did not
601 OPINION/ORDER
I. This matter is before the en banc court to review issues emanating from the panel opinion in O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. The underlying facts relating to the parties and the issues are fully described in the panel opinion and are therefore unnecessary to reiterate here. The en banc court is divided over the outcome of this case. The en banc court holds that courts in this Circuit must recognize that any preliminary injunction fitting within one of the disfavored categories must be more closely scrutinized to assure that the exigencies of the case support the granting of a remedy that is extraordinary even in the normal course. Movants seeking such an injunction are not entitled to rely on this Circuit's modified likelihood of success on the merits standard. A majority of the en banc court is of the view that the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction in this case should be affirmed. The decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to grant UDV's request for a preliminary injunction is hereby AFFIRMED.
601 OPINION/ORDER
Which are small loans with interest rates averaging 400 500% APR due on the next payday. This appeal presents the question of whether the State of Georgia may regulate a narrow segment of agency agreements between in state payday stores and out of state banks or whether the Georgia Act in issue is preempted by § 27(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (
601 OPINION/ORDER
Remmel & Zimmerman were on brief for plaintiffs. Were on brief for defendant. Agency or association.1 Violations of the Act are declared to contravene the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. Is intended to tangibly benefit or is represented to be for the tangible benefit of any law enforcement officer. Chamberlain all of whom are officers of law enforcement associations. Seeking to enjoin the Act and to have it declared unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. While declaring that the provision for injunctive enforcement was an unconstitutional prior restraint. As the Act was originally enacted in 1977. Its sole exception was for solicitations by or on behalf of law enforcement officers campaigning for election to public office an exception still in existence. The Act was amended to allow game wardens to sell historical publications describing state parks.3 Me. Is intended to benefit or is represented to be for the benefit of any law enforcement officer.
601 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On page 34. Was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Circuit Judge. law imposes a two day mandatory minimum jail sentence on defendants who refuse to take a blood/alcohol test and are later convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 29 M.R.S.A. 1312. Roberts' constitutional right to due process was violated and his petition for writ of habeas corpus must be granted as to his two day mandatory sentence. Officer Main smelled alcohol on Roberts' breath and suspected Roberts was driving while intoxicated but initially arrested Roberts only for operating a vehicle with a suspended license in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. 2184. Which is normally read to any driver stopped or arrested for operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor pursuant to 29 M.R.S.A. 1312. The form states: By operating or attempting to operate a motor vehicle in this State you have a duty to submit to and complete chemical tests to determine your blood alcohol level and drug concentration.
601 OPINION/ORDER
To answer two questions pertaining to § 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:(1) what is the preemptive scope of § 253. Because amendments were made to relevant state laws after the district court rendered judgment. Congress announced that it was passing
601 OPINION/ORDER
To answer two questions pertaining to § 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: (1) what is the preemptive scope of § 253. Because amendments were made to relevant state laws after the district court rendered judgment. This decision is rendered by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 ** * I. Congress announced that it was passing
601 OPINION/ORDER
601 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows. Is deleted. Judge Berzon's opinion dissenting in part is amended as follows. Footnote 1 of the dissenting opinion is revised to read as follows:
598 ELLEN MOORE V. LIBERTY NAT'L LIFE INS. CO. (9/28/2001, NO. 00-14507)

Liberty National contends that plaintiffs' claims are barred by both Alabama's applicable statute of limitations and Alabama's common law doctrine of repose. Liberty National further argues that §§ 1981 and 1982 frustrate Alabama's statutory scheme of insurance regulation and are thus reverse preempted by the McCarran Ferguson Act. We do have the jurisdiction to address those claims if we choose. The district court ruled that the § 1981 claims accrued at the time the insurance contracts were made and therefore were
598 OPINION/ORDER
The plaintiffs are African American and Caucasian voters residing in Hamilton. (2) the use of error prone voting equipment deprives voters of their due process right to have their votes counted accurately. Some commentators have suggested that these types of voting rights challenges are taking us into a brave new world. Others suggest that they are simply variations of old challenges. Code § 3506.15.1 The Secretary has certified two general types of equipment: (1)
598 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The main question in this case is whether a North Carolina tax on illegal drugs is in reality a criminal penalty.
598 OPINION/ORDER
Beaulieu is a practicing attorney with a law office in the City of Alabaster. Her office building is located in the central business district. Beaulieu was served by the City of Alabaster's code enforcement officer with written notice that she had violated the City's sign ordinance. This is the City's appeal from the district court's judgment in her favor. It was a stand alone. Informing her that the campaign sign was in violation of section 15.2(E)(1) of the City's sign ordinance. Brandenberg was
598 OPINION/ORDER
598 ELLEN MOORE V. LIBERTY NAT'L LIFE INS. CO. (9/28/2001, NO. 00-14507)

Liberty National contends that plaintiffs' claims are barred by both Alabama's applicable statute of limitations and Alabama's common law doctrine of repose. Liberty National further argues that §§ 1981 and 1982 frustrate Alabama's statutory scheme of insurance regulation and are thus reverse preempted by the McCarran Ferguson Act. We do have the jurisdiction to address those claims if we choose. The district court ruled that the § 1981 claims accrued at the time the insurance contracts were made and therefore were
598 PHARM. RESEARCH V. MEADOWS (9/6/2002, NO. 02-10151)

If a drug is not on the preferred list. The pharmacist informs the doctor of the availability of other drugs (usually on the preferred drug list) that allegedly have comparable therapeutic value but are less expensive. Approval of the prescribing doctor's first choice drug is guaranteed in 100 percent of all cases. Approximately 55 percent of all these calls have resulted in a change of the prescription to a drug on the preferred drug list. It is not favored by the pharmaceutical manufacturers that brought this lawsuit.

The prior authorization program gives the state of Florida considerable leverage in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. Companies that have agreed to pay a

598 ROTH V. U.S.

Argued for defendant appellant.  With him on the brief were Peter D. Roth was given mandatory retirement f
598 OPINION/ORDER
000 Three Mile Island area residents who allege that they have developed neoplasms2 as a result of the radiation released into the environment as a result of the reactor accident. The first appeal is that of a group of ten trial plaintiffs who were selected by the parties after the District Court adopted the plaintiffs' case management order. The critical issue there is the trial plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate that they were exposed to doses of radiation sufficient to cause their neoplasms. Defendants challenged the admissibility of the experts' testimony and the District Court was therefore required to hold extensive in limine hearings pursuant to its
598 OPINION/ORDER
Norton is substituted for her predecessor. Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. OPINION PER CURIAM: Before this en banc court are the district court's opinion and judgment entered pursuant to our court's mandate in 5627 Alaska v. There was no justification for taking so unusual an action here. We ordinarily do this only when there is a direct conflict between two Ninth Circuit opinions and a panel would not be free to follow either. No such conflict was asserted. Have provided a clear statement of the issues raised. A panel opinion would likely have emphasized the points raised 5628 by Judge Rymer in her separate opinion: that the present appeal asks this court to resolve the precise question we had already decided in the same case. The issue before the panel then would have been whether the law of the case applied. Or whether this case falls into one of the exceptions to that doctrine and there is nothing presented by the parties that would lead me to believe that an exception would have been applicable.
598 OPINION/ORDER
Norton is substituted for her predecessor. Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. OPINION PER CURIAM: Before this en banc court are the district court's opinion and judgment entered pursuant to our court's mandate in 5627 Alaska v. There was no justification for taking so unusual an action here. We ordinarily do this only when there is a direct conflict between two Ninth Circuit opinions and a panel would not be free to follow either. No such conflict was asserted. Have provided a clear statement of the issues raised. A panel opinion would likely have emphasized the points raised 5628 by Judge Rymer in her separate opinion: that the present appeal asks this court to resolve the precise question we had already decided in the same case. The issue before the panel then would have been whether the law of the case applied. Or whether this case falls into one of the exceptions to that doctrine and there is nothing presented by the parties that would lead me to believe that an exception would have been applicable.
598 OPINION/ORDER
He argues that his motion for remand was proper because his conversion claim relied solely on Arkansas law and therefore fell outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 1 argues that dismissal was improper because federal law did not preempt his state claim. affirm. Asserting that because the state law claim was preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act. Holding that it was preempted because it fell within the scope of the administrative remedies provided in FRSA and RLA. Which is specifically addressed by FRSA regulations. law. Was The court denied Peters' motion to collateral to his state tort claim. right Peters had to possess the certificate derived wholly from federal Peters appeals the district court's denial of remand and dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 33 II. Merrell Dow Because See 28 jurisdiction. could have been brought in federal court originally. 808 (1986). removal is proper only if Peters' claim raises a federal question.
598 PHARM. RESEARCH V. MEADOWS (9/6/2002, NO. 02-10151)

If a drug is not on the preferred list. The pharmacist informs the doctor of the availability of other drugs (usually on the preferred drug list) that allegedly have comparable therapeutic value but are less expensive. Approval of the prescribing doctor's first choice drug is guaranteed in 100 percent of all cases. Approximately 55 percent of all these calls have resulted in a change of the prescription to a drug on the preferred drug list. It is not favored by the pharmaceutical manufacturers that brought this lawsuit.

The prior authorization program gives the state of Florida considerable leverage in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. Companies that have agreed to pay a

596 OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that the strict liability award was not permissible under Minnesota common law. That the MERA claim is moot because Viacom has entered an administrative consent order concerning the contaminated property. That the attorneys' fee award was excessive. That the prejudgment interest was excessive because Viacom had offered to settle the case. A portion of Westinghouse's business there was the repair of transformers that were insulated with Inerteen. Chlorobenzenes were used as a solvent to thin the PCBs down to a usable consistency. It was recognized that PCBs were potential carcinogens and that they were accumulating. PCBs and chlorobenzenes are classified as hazardous substances under MERLA and CERCLA. Sites contaminated with hazardous substances are subject to remediation under federal and state law. The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether PCBs were leaking from those sites and migrating off Westinghouse property. Whether the PCBs were likely to be detected by others and traced back to Westinghouse.
596 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Lori J. Also on the brief was Peter D. Of counsel were David M. This is an appeal from the Merit System Protection Board (
596 OPINION/ORDER
Walters is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). **Asa Hutchinson is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). ***John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Chief Judge: This is an appeal from a permanent injunction entered to protect First Amendment rights. Where the basis for the government's action is solely the physician's professional
596 OPINION/ORDER
Emerald wanted the bankruptcy court to enjoin the IGB from revoking its gaming license and to require the IGB to drop the disciplinary proceedings that were pending against Emerald. We have consolidated the appeals for decision because of the close factual relation between them. The court had held that the IGB was required to grant Emerald's 1999 application for renewal and relocation of its license. Emerald which was then still operating in East Dubuque applied for a license renewal. While the appeal was pending. The new section permitted
596 OPINION/ORDER
Lamboley were on brief. United States Department of Justice were on brief. Bauser were on the brief for amicus curiae 2 Nuclear Energy Institute. Nuclear technology is used in energy production. Those advances have come at a price the waste that is the inevitable byproduct. The consensus is that the waste should be stored in an underground repository to be located at Yucca Mountain. Nevada asks us to review both the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and that portion of the Record of Decision (ROD) the Department of Energy (DOE or Department) issued governing the Senior Circuit Judge Edwards was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. 1 3 transportation of nuclear waste from the production sources to Yucca. Nevada alleges the FEIS is procedurally flawed and therefore violates the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA). We conclude that some of Nevada's claims are unripe for review and the remaining claims are without merit. The DOE is responsible for the development and operation of the repository once the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issues a license for the project under the Atomic Energy Act.
596 97-4052A -- HARLINE V. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION -- 07/22/1998

On the brief) for Defendants Appellees.

A corrected copy of page one of the opinion is attached for your convenience.

Very truly yours. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

596 97-4052 -- HARLINE V. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION -- 07/22/1998

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
596 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was L. With him on the brief were Kelly A. With him on the brief were Robert M. That the United States was not liable to JRS&G under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution for the alleged taking of JRS&G's leasehold interest in a 158 acre tract of land in Lapeer County. Which are not in dispute. Are set forth in John R. JRS&G is entitled to the exclusive use of the property for the purpose of mining sand and gravel. JRS&G's operations are principally located in its plant area in the eastcentral portion of the property. JRS&G's main sand and gravel pit (
593 OPINION/ORDER
Nearly 200 petitions for review of the various FERC orders have been filed in our Court. Were the proper subject of the refund proceedings instituted by FERC. The net effect of our decision is to preserve the scope of the existing FERC refund proceedings. (2) FERC's denial of relief for energy sales in which CERS was the purchaser. Tucson Electric Power Company. 22 3 Also before us in this case are the Public Entities'4 and the Bonneville Power Administration's petitions for review of FERC's determination that it had authority to order relief for certain transactions known as
593 OPINION/ORDER
Nereyda Garcia and Sherin & Lodgen LLP were on brief. David Chaffin and Hare & Chaffin were on brief. Berry & Howard were on brief. Eaton and Sloane & Walsh were on brief. Other environmental laws have pitted businesses against their insurers in fierce disputes over who will bear these costs. That is the case here. Underlying this lawsuit is the cleanup of five hazardous waste sites. Millipore Corporation was one of the sources of waste at the sites. Was a defendant in several actions alleging violations of federal and state environmental laws. The primary issue here is whether the district court erred in entering summary judgment for the insurers (and then denying reconsideration) on the ground that none of Millipore's CERCLA liability is covered under any of the comprehensive general liability (
593 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This case presents the question whether under New Jersey law a casino patron may recover from a casino for gambling losses caused by the casino's conduct in serving alcoholic beverages to the patron and allowing the patron to continue to gamble after it becomes obvious that the patron is intoxicated. That while he gambled he was served free alcoholic beverages until he became intoxicated. The appeals were consolidated. Our task in this appeal is to predict whether the Supreme Court of New Jersey would recognize claims such as those asserted by the plaintiff. For neither the Supreme Court of New Jersey nor the Appellate Division has addressed the question that is now before us or any closely related question. Because the question is both difficult and important. Therefore we are relegated to predicting what the Supreme Court of New Jersey would do if it were confronted with this question.[fn2] While we are required to venture this prediction and while we recognize the need to issue a published opinion for the guidance of the district courts in the circuit.
593 OPINION/ORDER
Liberty National contends that plaintiffs' claims are barred by both Alabama's applicable statute of limitations and Alabama's common law doctrine of repose. Liberty National further argues that §§ 1981 and 1982 frustrate Alabama's statutory scheme of insurance regulation and are thus reverse preempted by the McCarran Ferguson Act. We do have the jurisdiction to address those claims if we choose. The district court ruled that the § 1981 claims accrued at the time the insurance contracts were made and therefore were barred by Alabama's two year statute of limitations for personal injury torts. The court found that the proposed amended complaint alleged with particularity (as that term is defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)) that Liberty National fraudulently concealed the information that gave rise to plaintiffs' claims. The court held that the two year statute of limitations would be tolled under Alabama law if these specific allegations were true. 4 Liberty National argued that even if the complaint could not be dismissed at the pleadings stage on the basis of the statute of limitations.
593 OPINION/ORDER
Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived.
593 OPINION/ORDER
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
593 OPINION/ORDER
Kleger was on brief for appellant.

593 OPINION/ORDER
ORDER The parties' joint motion for corrections to opinion is GRANTED. Is further amended as follows: 1. Replace the last sentence of the last paragraph beginning:
593 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: Delete Footnote 4. Praying for relief under California's Unfair Competition Law (
593 OPINION/ORDER
McDermott Will & Emery. Nearly 200 petitions for review of the various FERC orders have been filed in our Court. Were the proper subject of the refund proceedings instituted by FERC. The net effect of our decision is to preserve the scope of the existing FERC refund proceedings. (2) FERC's denial of relief for energy sales in which CERS was the purchaser. Also before us in this case are the Public Entities'4 and the Bonneville Power Administration's petitions for review of FERC's determination that it had authority to order relief for certain transactions known as
593 OPINION/ORDER
Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived.
593 OPINION/ORDER
Liberty National contends that plaintiffs' claims are barred by both Alabama's applicable statute of limitations and Alabama's common law doctrine of repose. Liberty National further argues that §§ 1981 and 1982 frustrate Alabama's statutory scheme of insurance regulation and are thus reverse preempted by the McCarranFerguson Act. We do have the jurisdiction to address those claims if we choose. The district court ruled that the § 1981 claims accrued at the time the insurance contracts were made and were therefore barred by Alabama's two year statute of limitations for personal injury torts. The court found that the proposed amended complaint alleged with particularity (as that term is defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)) that Liberty National fraudulently concealed the information that gave rise to plaintiffs' claims. The court held that the two year statute of 4 limitations would be tolled under Alabama law if these specific allegations were true. The court held that the state rule of repose was inapplicable to plaintiffs' federal civil rights claims.
590 OPINION/ORDER
Opening briefs have been filed by four petitioners or groups of petitioners: (1) BellSouth Corp. We also have received briefs from numerous intervenors. Petitioners contend that various specific actions taken by the FCC in the Order that directly affect the application and calculation of access charges are in violation of the 1996 Act. That other decisions made the by FCC in the Order are arbitrary and capricious. The IXCs argue generally that the Order does not make the transition to competitive access rates quickly enough and is too cautious in its concern for universal service. Argue that the FCC was insufficiently cautious with respect to protecting universal service and left them exposed to inefficient competitive entry in the short term. The FCC counters that the challenged provisions of the Order are the result of a reasonable exercise of its authority to regulate rates for interstate services under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Are not arbitrary and capricious. We review agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act to determine whether it is
590 97-3220 -- FRANKLIN SAVINGS CORP. V. U.S. -- 05/04/1999

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is the third appeal to this court and the seventh published opinion involving disputes over the conservation and liquidation of the long gone but not forgotten Franklin Savings Association. See Franklin Sav. This court has distilled the following summary of the litigation from Franklin II. See 35 F.3d at 1468.

In 1990 the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS ) determined that FSA was

590 OPINION/ORDER
The district court held as a matter of law that MidAmerican was immune from federal antitrust liability under the state action immunity doctrine. (2) the regulatory policy is actively supervised by the state. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction was proper in the district court 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 Fed R. MidAmerican is the largest electric utility in Iowa. Which is located in the area designated under Iowa Code §§ 476.22 .26 (1997) as the exclusive electric service territory of MidAmerican. Is sold by MidAmerican under its own
590 OPINION/ORDER
Sanitary
590 OPINION/ORDER
We hold that the determination whether the BIA properly employed its streamlined
590 01-1025 -- TRANS SHUTTLE INC. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO -- 11/05/2001

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

I. Contending they were conducting extensive intrastate operations without providing the necessary interstate service. Which is reserved for commercial motor carriers.

For the most part. While this review was pending in state court. They alleged that PUC and DIA targeted them because their officers and principals are ethnic minorities. The shuttle operators sought to enjoin what they claim is a racially motivated deprivation of their constitutional right to engage in interstate commerce.

Still seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief. Alleging that Hallelujah was operating a commercial shuttle service without a valid permit from PUC.

The shuttle operators sought a temporary restraining order in connection with their federal lawsuit. Which specifically indicated that a court can dismiss under the Younger doctrine without resolving doubts about its subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 100 n.3 (approving dismissal under Younger without first determining whether there is a case or controversy).

590 OPINION/ORDER
Praying for relief under California's Unfair Competition Law (
590 01-5066 -- SENECA-CAYUGA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA V. NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION -- 04/17/2003

Appellants are the federal agencies and officials who threatened to prosecute three Native American tribes for use of a device called the Magical Irish Instant Bingo Dispenser System. Which we will call
590 OPINION/ORDER
S 11501.1 The district court held that the assessment was a discriminatory tax. We will reverse. 1. That section was recodified pursuant to Pub. We will refer to provisions of the 4 R Act at issue here by section number as currently codified in title 49. The bridge supporting that highway became so deteriorated that it was closed in 1982. That railroad is not a party. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation was to pay 7% of the construction costs. The Township was to pay the remaining 87% of the construction costs and 70% of the maintenance costs. It argued that the assessment was a discriminatory tax in violation of the 4 R Act. The district court declared that the assessment was an unlawfully discriminatory tax under the 4 R Act. That decision included a proposed allocation of the construction and maintenance costs and also decided that Wheeling was not discriminated against on the basis of its railroad status. There are two exceptions: Congress may abrogate a state's immunity. The parties do not dispute that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission is an arm of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania protected by Eleventh Amendment principles of sovereign immunity.4 Also.
590 OPINION/ORDER
Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES were adopted in response to train derailments within the state. Are preempted by federal railroad safety laws or regulations. A Southern Pacific train was also involved in another toxic spill resulting from a derailment near Seacliff. CPUC was directed to consider factors such as (1) the severity of the grade and curve. CPUC was further directed to consider
590 OPINION/ORDER
These rules are called
588 OPINION/ORDER
The district court held that enforcement of section 211 a is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. We reverse the grant of summary judgment because we conclude that there are disputed issues of fact. The legislature hereby finds and declares that sound fiscal management requires vigilance to ensure that funds appropriated by the legislature for the purchase of goods and provision of needed services are ultimately expended solely for the purpose for which they were appropriated. The legislature finds and declares that when public funds are appropriated for the purchase of specific goods and/or the provision of needed services. Those funds are instead used to encourage or discourage union organization. The proprietary interests of this state are adversely affected. Which should be utilized solely for the public purpose for which they were appropriated. 2. Or (c) hire employees or pay the salary and other compensation of employees whose principal job duties are to encourage or discourage union organization.
588 OPINION/ORDER
Who are unlicensed street vendors of clothing painted with grafitti. (2) its conclusion that remand is unnecessary to determine whether § 20 453 is a reasonable time. Because we hold that New York City's licensing requirement is a valid. We conclude that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a
588 TAMIAMI PARTNERS V. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Tamiami Partners v. The officers of these tribal entities who are responsible for overseeing the gaming operation (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F7826839DF24B0F882571840055B8E8/$file/0455084.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. 6132 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. Were on the brief. The stickleback is found chiefly in parts of Santa Barbara. The stickleback prefers to make its nest where there is ample vegetation and a gentle flow of water. The rate of water flow is a key factor in preferred stickleback habitat. Which concluded that the project was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-3250a.htm">96-3250A -- ANR PIPELINE CO. AND COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. LAFAVER -- 07/21/1998<BR></A><BR> Is a <p> member of the firm Morris. Two and three of the opinion are attached for your convenience. <p> Sincerely. The plaintiffs' suit is not saved by the <u>Ex parte Young</u> doctrine. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1962a.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tierney with whom Tierney Law Office was on brief for appellant. Walsh with whom Kroll & Tract was on brief for appellees Charles B. P.C. was on brief for appellees Jeffrey Mennino. A passenger injured after police officers had chased the motorcycle on which she was riding sued the police officers. The following facts are not in dispute. Was traveling in his police cruiser north on County Road in Lakeville. Which he was operating as he drove along County Road. The posted speed limit on County Road was 40 miles per hour. Was attached as an exhibit to Meninno's deposition. 2 began to pursue the motorcycle. Realized that the police car was following them. Backing off a number of times when it appeared that the bike was wobbling and the riders might fall off. Telling her of the pursuit and asking her to notify the police department in the neighboring town of Freetown that the motorcycle was heading toward the Lakeville Freetown line. Were parked in separate cruisers on Route 18 in Freetown. Before turning left from County Road onto Mason Road and accelerating again to over sixty miles per hour.2 Officer Meninno kept up and told Sullivan by radio that he and the motorcycle were now proceeding eastbound on Mason Road. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/99-2085.htm">99-2085 -- FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP. V. SCHUCHMANN -- 12/19/2000<BR></A><BR> Whether under New Mexico law the district court abused its discretion in failing to instruct the jury that the violation of federal regulations governing savings and loan institutions was negligent as a matter of law. It was put under the receivership of RTC. <p> In 1993. In 1996 FDIC succeeded to the interests of RTC as receiver and was substituted as plaintiff. <u>See</u> 12 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug95/94-4403.man.html">TAMIAMI PARTNERS V. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Tamiami Partners v. The officers of these tribal entities who are responsible for overseeing the gaming operation (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5108.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Kathy Bailey. With her on the brief were Thomas L. Of counsel was Susan V. With her on the brief was Roger J. Did not have a cognizable property interest </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1679p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The private interests that will be affected by the state's notification in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cases if the outcome of the hearing is in the state's favor are very substantial. This jeopardy will not only extend to virtually every aspect of the registrant's everyday life. It will also last at least 15 years. Has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens by giving prompt notification to potential victims and relevant caregivers with respect to registrants who are accurately determined to be Tier 2 or Tier 3 risks. The state also has an interest in ensuring that its classification and notification system is both fair and accurate. The state has no substantial interest in notifying persons who will not come into contact with the registrant. Nor has it any interest in notifying those who will come into contact with a registrant who has erroneously been identified as a moderate or high risk. Compared to proceedings in which that burden is on the registrant. The 60 risk of error will be materially reduced without materially impairing the state's ability to secure a prompt determination and without imposing substantial new administrative burdens on the state. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2000/991124.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The specific question before us is whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD7EC45CE5FFA89B88257065005746B3/$file/0371439.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the EPA did have the authority to consider jeopardy to listed species in making the transfer decision. The EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The state transfer provisions of § 1342(b) have proven popular. Arizona was the forty fifth state to obtain pollution permitting authority from the EPA. If the Administrator determines that the state is not following those standards. Each agency must </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-2258.htm">02-2258 -- QWEST CORP. V. CITY OF SANTA FE -- 08/24/2004<BR></A><BR> Qwest brought suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the Ordinance is preempted by state and federal law. Qwest argued that it was entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5086.html">BAYOU V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></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-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5121.html">WELLS FARGO BANK V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></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-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQ0NzAgdyAybmQgRXJyYXRhLnBkZg==/03-4470%20w%202nd%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitions for review are granted in part and denied in part. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ERIC E. We find that several aspects of the regulation violate the express terms of the Clean Water Act or are otherwise arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Statutory Background The Clean Water Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/99-14863.man.html">BANK OF AM. V. FED. DEPOSIT INS. CORP. (3/23/2001, NO. 99-14863)<BR></A><BR> That specific question is one of those complicated and transitory regulatory banking issues that is of no immediate interest to anyone except those directly involved with it.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQ0NzAgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-4470%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitions for review are granted in part and denied in part. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 KATZMANN. We find that several aspects of the regulation violate the express terms of the Clean Water Act or are otherwise arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Statutory Background The Clean Water Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></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-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-1367a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Robert N. A hearing on these charges was held before an Administrative Law Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968147.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Officials of the State of Georgia appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of O.C.G.A. § 21 5 35 to prohibit a member of the General Assembly from accepting contributions for a campaign for federal office while the General Assembly is in session. the district court's The court (Judge Hill dissenting) affirms grant of the preliminary injunction. Concluding that the Georgia statute is preempted by the Federal Election Campaign Act. I. Doug Teper is a member of the Georgia General Assembly who is contemplating a campaign for federal office. Teper's co plaintiffs are potential contributors to his federal campaign. Teper is precluded by a provision of the Georgia Ethics in Government Act. The Supreme Court has recognized that often in cases challenging rules governing elections there is not sufficient time between the filing of the complaint and the election to obtain judicial resolution of the controversy before the election. This exception applies under two conditions: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/99-14863.man.html">BANK OF AM. V. FED. DEPOSIT INS. CORP. (3/23/2001, NO. 99-14863)<BR></A><BR> That specific question is one of those complicated and transitory regulatory banking issues that is of no immediate interest to anyone except those directly involved with it.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1446.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dana & Gould LLP were on brief. Were on brief. Even for the federal agencies charged with enforcing the laws is illustrated by this case. What is involved is properly ascertaining congressional intent in light of constitutional guarantees in decision of cases. What is involved is whether she will be deported. Possibly back to that war torn land she left when she was a child. The complexity of the immigration laws was enhanced by two new statutes. Was signed into law. Was signed into law. Both statutes contain jurisdiction stripping provisions removing from the federal circuit courts of appeals their previous jurisdiction over certain categories of final orders of deportation. 2 2 This case was originally argued on May 9. It would have been vastly preferable. For the INS to have asserted this jurisdictional argument initially. We have some concern about the government's burdening of immigrants with the obligation to respond to new found statutory interpretations by the INS after a case has been heard and decided.1 Nonetheless. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1998/98a1990p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal is from the dismissal of all counts of a complaint filed by Crossroads Cogeneration Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B9AC6A6B95974BBD88256DF100004A7E/$file/0135863.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At page 1132. Which came down after briefing was completed in this case. There is no conflict. Frank held that an employee's tort claims against his employing airline were expressly preempted. Frank is distinguishable because the claims were against the airline that employed the plaintiff. The inconsistency in Frank between the federal regulatory scheme and the tort remedy was clear. It is not clear from Frank how the Fifth Circuit would decide a claim such as this one against third party tortfeasors. Judges Kleinfeld and McKeown have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The test was negligently performed. While she was flying from Japan to Portland. Ishikawa was told she would be required to take a random drug test when the plane landed. There have to be safeguards to assure the accuracy of urine tests. One method of testing for a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></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-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991218.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 5 the crossreference is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM5MjItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3922-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5436a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2370.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for Farmland Dairies. Were on brief for appellees. Inc. is a non profit trade association representing New York milk processors and distributors of fluid milk products. It is joined by five fluid milk processors and distributors that procure raw milk from dairy farms outside of New England and distribute fluid milk in New England. The Commission's primary purpose is to regulate milk prices in the signatory states. The delegation members' compensation is determined and paid by the individual states. The highest prices are charged for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1083.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Michael J. On the brief were James M. Of counsel was Mark B. On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Charles R. Which is known as the Byrd Amendment. Customs determined that Cathedral and Root were ineligible for those distributions because the two companies had not made timely requests for payment. The National Candle Association filed an antidumping petition alleging that the importation of petroleum wax candles from China was causing and threatening to cause material injury to the domestic candle industry. The questionnaires were marked </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200403/03-1008a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMzNfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6233_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Awarding monetary and injunctive relief in favor of the United States following a civil jury trial at which defendants were found to have violated reporting requirements of the Controlled Substances Act. 2 which awarded the United States a $2 million monetary penalty and injunctive relief after a civil jury trial at which defendants were found to have repeatedly violated a provision of the Controlled Substances Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D64727E1F87230A488256DE4000124DC/$file/0256197.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A United States Postal worker who was delivering mail in Chatsworth. Ileto's sole surviving dependent parent and three of the children who were shot at the JCC filed a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court against multiple defendants involved in the manufacture. The case was removed to federal district court. All motions were granted. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their public nuisance and state law negligence claims.1 Because the plaintiffs have stated a cognizable claim under California tort law for negligence and public nuisance against 1 When we refer to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/995755.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/02-9577.htm">02-9577 -- TSEGAY V. ASHCROFT -- 10/26/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/01-5436a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Commonwealth of Virginia in support of appellants Stephen A. Maurice Baskin and Glenn Taubman were on the brief for amici curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States. With her on the brief were Laurence J. Siegel were on the brief for amicus curiae New York Thruway Authority in support of appellees. Katherine Brewer and Jonathan Cuneo were on the brief for amici curiae Sierra Club. Were on the brief for amici curiae State of New York. That the Executive Order is not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. I. Background A PLA is a multi employer. It typically requires that all contractors and subcontractors who will work on a project subscribe to the agreement. The implementation of a PLA on a project underwritten by the Government almost always is accomplished by making agreement to the PLA a bid specifi cation. The Executive Order provides that the Government will neither require nor prohibit the use of a PLA on any federal or federally funded construction project. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199803/97-1222a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Thomas J. With her on the brief were Frank W. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief for amici curiae Maxxam. What if an appointee resigns or dies while the Senate is in session? A dispute about the meaning of the Vacancies Act is at the center of this case. The orders they signed are therefore null and void. Extensions of time were sought and opposed. Motions and memoranda were exchanged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1047.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Posner and Rubin & Rudman were on brief for plaintiff. Spaeth and Hale and Dorr LLP were on brief for appellees New England Power Company and New England Electric System (NEES). Hoag & Eliot LLP were on brief for appellees Pacific Gas & Electric Company and PG&E Corporation. New England Power is a major wholesaler of electric power in New England. In the 1970s Norwood sought instead to purchase its power from New England Power and have that power delivered over the intercity transmission network of Boston Edison. The matter was resolved by settlement after Norwood brought an antitrust suit against them. The decree in the antitrust case directed that the annexed settlement agreement and power contract were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA26FF01BBAA634988256EAF00541330/$file/0256566.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> SAN BUENAVENTURA 7735 that its federal claims were not ripe. (4) erred in not considering its argument that the city ordinance is preempted by state law. Approved increases were limited to seven percent of the base rent the first year an increase was requested or. Because no provision was made for rent increases in the event a mobile home was sold or transferred. The Ordinance was amended to provide for limited vacancy </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5007.html">PORTER V. US<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021494.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion filed 8/1/03 is vacated Filed: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02 1494 (CA 00 582 3) August 18. Line 2 of section III the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2542.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</u> were on brief. Was on brief. Mso hansi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/467413A354A0170888256F8D001206D9/$file/0273947.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Salvador Azarte and Celia Castellon ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A656293E710C2CA88256E61007BA023/$file/0170748.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the proper respondent. Circuit Judge: Jose Flores Chavez was fifteen years old when the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF48386956684E8388256F540056492F/$file/0273538.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ASHCROFT 16177 Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1354.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Tracey L. Of counsel was Maureen A. The trial court ruled there was no significant prejudice to Bannum. Past performance on other government contracts was the most important criteria. The CEFs are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4274.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both parcels are located south of the Bloomington Exit on the east side of I 15 in the City. The City's manager allegedly refused to provide such a letter because the City was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-7061.html">DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS V. HERSHEL W. GOBER<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>Ronald L. On the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Donald E. Petitioners bring their challenge under 38 U.S.C. § 502.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1830.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief. Were on brief. That is. The results of the 1991 probe must have come as something of a shock. Rioux's final report specifically noted that there were no problems with Dantran's fringe benefit payment practices. The timing could not have been worse. The kingdom was lost). Wilkinson's final report pressed for debarment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5194.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was denied permission to collect royalties from the publisher of a textbook he wrote on Social Security disability law. Wolfe indicated on the form that his official duties did not relate in any way to the proposed activity except </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B9961F8896B700688257203005698B1/$file/0436136.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm the district court's decision that Bertram Sacks has standing to challenge the ban on travel and that the travel ban regulation was validly promulgated. To demonstrate a concrete and imminent likelihood that he will be penalized for violations of the restriction on medical donations. The twelve years of United States and United Nations sanctions were a dire time for Iraqi civilians. Sacks and other Voices members traveled to Iraq repeatedly while the sanctions were in effect. It is necessary to review the history of the Iraqi sanctions regime. Available at http://www.unicef.org/publications/index 4439.html (reviewing data on increased infant and child mortality during the sanctions regime period and concluding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043620p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was employed by Appellee New Jersey Natural Gas Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-1005b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Katherine E. With him on the brief were John C. I Hazardous waste combustors (HWCs) are facilities such as incinerators. Is a trade association that includes manufacturers of Portland cement that utilize hazardous waste as an alternative fuel in some of their kilns. A permit program in which permitting authorities either EPA or states that have hazardous waste 3 programs authorized by the agency apply those national standards to particular facilities. The national standards applicable to the petitioner are authorized by RCRA § 3004. The burning of hazardous waste is considered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ2MzEgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/02-4631%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because petitioner's application for asylum was found to be untimely by the Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113606enb.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for these particular functions. Defendant Sheriff Peterson is responsible for the operation of the jail in Clinch County. Sheriff Peterson's deputy and chief jailer is Alan Brown. As Manders was escorted into the jail's holding cell. Manders was released from jail. The Manual also details when deadly force is justified. Are responsible for use of force policy at the jail. For ensuring that the policy is followed.3 According to Manders. Manders sought damages against Clinch County and Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity.4 The district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on Manders's § 1983 damage claims against Clinch County and Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity for the use of force policy at the jail and the training and The parties and the district court litigated this lawsuit against Sheriff Peterson as if all of Manders's § 1983 claims against Clinch County also were made against Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity. Claiming that he is a state actor and that the district court erred in denying him Eleventh Amendment immunity.6 This appeal does not address the individual liability of Sheriff Peterson or his deputies for using excessive force.7 Instead. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></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-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-3120.htm">96-3120 -- GOETZ V. GLICKMAN -- 07/10/1998<BR></A><BR> Is unconstitutional. We affirm.<strong></strong> <p> <strong> <center>Facts and Proceedings Below</strong></center> <p> Goetz filed this class action lawsuit against the Secretary contending that his and other class members' constitutional rights are being violated because they must pay a $1.00 per head </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/95-9525.wpd.html">MAIER V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Maier contended that recent developments in municipal wastewater technology have rendered the EPA's regulations for secondary treatment inadequate. 69 (1980) (1) The Utah Wilderness Association was dismissed from this appeal. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2F7EAB6A6DF348E88256EED006D5274/$file/0235232.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Potter is substituted for his predecessor. Willard Johnson are homeless persons in Seattle. They have found it difficult to receive mail. Although some homeless shelters will accept mail on behalf of residents. They will only hold mail for a limited time and mail theft in shelters is a recurring problem. 1994).1 No fee postal boxes are available to customers who are ineligible for carrier delivery service. The regulation has since been changed to require an applicant to have a verifiable point of contact even if he or she provides proper identification or is known to the postmaster or box clerk. 2001). 2 The regulation has since been changed to require the customer seeking a no fee box to have a physical address. No fee boxes are unavailable in large cities such as Seattle because the Postal Service delivers mail to all physical addresses in the area. All general delivery mail is sent to one designated facility in Seattle. The mail is held for pickup at a designated post office for thirty days. General delivery service is intended primarily to serve as a temporary means of delivery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2388.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Makechnie & Vetne were on brief. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1739.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0DA35F672F37EB9288257036004D3C75/$file/0415155.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which rates are set by a state utilities commission pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Is ripe for judicial review. Even though such rates are subject to later adjustment by the state utilities commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1481.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Albertson</U> were on brief. Were on brief. Was held liable for $1. The case turns on an issue of first impression concerning the interplay between state and federal law on the question of which institutions are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2647.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Background</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> The Narragansetts were aboriginal inhabitants of what is now Rhode Island. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/00-14434.opn.html">FLORIDA E. COAST RY. CO. V. CITY OF W. PALM BEACH (9/27/2001, NO. 00-14434)<BR></A><BR> Is not pre empted by the ICCTA.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981884.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After con2 ducting a myelogram to identify other problems that might have contributed to Talley's pain. The device was manufactured and distributed by Danek Medical. Talley was instructed to avoid excessive exercise or movement for several weeks. Talley was again instructed to minimize physical activity and to wear a back brace. A nerve injury common among patients who have had multiple back surgeries. Talley has been examined by other doctors who have offered differing opinions as to the stability of the Dyna Lok Device and the screws. A doctor at Georgetown University Hospital advised Talley that the Dyna Lok Device was not loose. A doctor at Johns Hopkins University Hospital advised her that the device was loose. Although Talley has been advised to have the Dyna Lok device removed. She consistently refuses such an operation without a guarantee that it will not worsen her condition. During the period that Talley was Dr. Designing endoscopes and assisting in efforts to secure FDA approval for the use of the endoscopes in the spine work that is unrelated to the use of internal fixation devices. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-9577.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for review is therefore denied. There is an exception from FERC jurisdiction. (2) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2705.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants Hon. Navas D'Acosta</SPAN> were on brief for appellants David Noriega Rodrí. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2155.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is only if no one pays any attention to what the other ones are doing. Local levels often have overlapping competence. One area where this risk can materialize is in the regulation of the nation's waterways. This case is about an attempt to make the most of each participants' efforts. Their efforts were not greeted with enthusiasm by at least one group. Home Builders alleged that the ICA was adopted without sufficient notice and comment under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The district court dismissed the action on the ground that it was nonjusticiable. The Act is designed to establish a comprehensive program to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410688.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue is whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the Schering Plough settlements unreasonably restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 45(c). The Upsher Settlement Schering Plough ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-14434.opn.html">FLORIDA E. COAST RY. CO. V. CITY OF W. PALM BEACH (9/27/2001, NO. 00-14434)<BR></A><BR> Is not pre empted by the ICCTA.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></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-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/98-6261.man.html">PRYOR V. RENO (4/6/1999, NO. 98-6261)<BR></A><BR> Is unconstitutional under both the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the United States Constitution. State departments of motor vehicles with a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/41D3CD7C1C467BA288257084004E8890/$file/0435753.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gutierrez is substituted for his predecessor. The National Marine Fisheries Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-8087.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Would have required the BLM to dismiss sixteen pending administrative actions against Robbins. The BLM responds that Robbins' claim is barred by sovereign immunity based on the relationship between the Administrative Procedure Act. We reject the BLM's sovereign immunity argument but affirm the district court's denial of Robbins' due process claim. (1) Judge Hartz joins in the result and concurs in the opinion except for Part II. <hr> BACKGROUND Robbins is the owner of three ranch properties located in Hot Springs County. Or BLM decision where <hr> range or resource degradation is at issue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1997/97a1767p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the Secretary of Labor does not have the authority. We will grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. Williams was 62 years of age at the time of the settlement. It was decided that Williams would take an early retirement. The policy would have paid the required amount per month. Remarking that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/99-12813.op3.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/26/2001, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge: </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1027p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are presented with a conflict between the Director. Although we disagree with the Board's conclusion that Congress's intent is clear from the statute. We conclude that the Director's interpretation of the pertinent federal regulations is plainly erroneous and inconsistent with the regulations. Federal Black Lung Benefits Program Prior cases have reviewed the legislative history of the Black Lung Benefits Act. We set forth only those portions that are essential to an understanding of this case. Claims for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act are either </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></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-5.gif" ALT="571"></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-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/98-6261.man.html">PRYOR V. RENO (4/6/1999, NO. 98-6261)<BR></A><BR> Is unconstitutional under both the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the United States Constitution. State departments of motor vehicles with a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/99-12813.op3.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/26/2001, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge: </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978189.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978189.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Certified under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the following class:5 1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0D11D4E2203C4EF7882571990050574D/$file/0435677.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is not so. The primary jurisdiction doctrine is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></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-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTExNTYtYmtfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1156-bk_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: In this opinion we are required to examine concepts that have evolved in our jurisprudence since the 1798 ratification of the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Contributing to those concepts were. Examining the broad canvas of this jurisprudence is like looking at an abstract painting whose meaning and significance is not seen by every viewer in the same light. Are obliged to and do adopt the meaning set out in Supreme Court opinions. It is subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These reimbursements are derived. Appellants Nickel and McCloud have substantial responsibilities within the Office. Nickel is the Office's executive director and has responsibility for the overall management of the Fund's operations. McCloud is the Secretary of the Public Protection and Regulation Cabinet for the Commonwealth of Kentucky and oversees agencies within the Cabinet. Which then determines whether the application will be approved on the basis of numerous regulatory qualifications. among others. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-1432a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Joseph L. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Nor does petitioner dispute that its ephedrine and pseudoephedrine containing products have been and will continue to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A795A16F14F7409B882571CC00701998/$file/0435677.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and superseded by the opinion filed concurrently herewith. The opinion is amended as follows: 1. Delete from the sentence beginning </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022100.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> HAWKE 3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Are codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 6701 and 6714. Rather than to the provisions as codified. 2 The West Virginia Bankers Association is a banking trade association consisting of community banks. Savings and loans located in West Virginia. 3 The Joint Appendix is cited as J.A. in this opinion. 4 CLINE v. Were preempted by federal law. Where there is a regulatory conflict between a State insurance regulator and a Federal regulator. The Federal or State regulator </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0322p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal question in this appeal is whether the Public Service Commission of Kentucky (the PSC) correctly applied a superseded Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation on the ground that application of the current regulation to a pending case would be impermissibly retroactive. Underlying the dispute is a complex statutory and regulatory scheme. Who are referred to as competing local exchange carriers. One of the key obligations imposed by the Act is the requirement that ILECs make </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014434.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is not pre empted by the ICCTA. Appellate jurisdiction is under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Situated on this property are an office building. Rinker was FEC's largest customer. Rinker is in the business of supplying building material including </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0141p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was preempted by. Holding that it did not have jurisdiction to review the MPSC's order under 42 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6). Federal law. where the agency rule or action giving rise to the controversy is final and not contingent upon future uncertainties or intervening agency action. The challenged order was the product not of § 252 proceedings. It is presumably because § 252(e)(6) does not provide GTE with an adequate assurance of federal review that the MPSC does not seriously defend on appeal the district court's conclusion that §252(e)(6) satisfies Thunder Basin because it defers. The MPSC argues that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D2D2B591E10EBBF88256A84007C9E01/$file/9936173.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 is amended as follows: 1. Second paragraph: Replace sentence reading: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6300.htm">98-6300 -- SIMS V. HALLIBURTON CO. -- 07/14/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Halliburton Co. hired plaintiff Larry Don Sims. Contending he was terminated in retaliation for reporting violations of environmental law and because of his age. Halliburton challenged Sims' retaliation claim on the ground that it alleged he was discharged for making internal reports of federal law violations. Which is not sufficient to establish a violation of Oklahoma public policy. Our task is to achieve the same result in federal court that would have been reached in state court had the state claims been pursued there. <u>See</u> <u>Perlmutter v. While we are not bound by the rulings of the lower Oklahoma courts. We will generally follow them absent compelling reasons not to. <u>See</u> <u>Perlmutter</u>. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1363p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The contesting parties in this case are two labor organizations who vied for the right to represent the nurses at eight health care facilities in Pennsylvania and Delaware. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings for PSEA on nine of the claims on the ground that they were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. PNA is both a professional association of nurses and a nurses' labor union. PSEA is a school employees' labor union. Who were still employees of PNA. PNA also contends that the individual defendants who were its former labor representatives failed to negotiate in good faith successor collective bargaining agreements on behalf of their PNA units. PSEA removed the case to federal court on the ground that some of the claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). X and XI to the extent that they were based on conduct covered by the NLRA. Concluding that these claims were not preempted. We must consider the jurisdictional question even where the parties are prepared to concede it. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/26E74E07D504780288256C16007B3904/$file/0017352.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/01-1118a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were James E. Jones were on the brief for amicus curiae American Trucking Associations. On the brief were Robert S. Where they could be used to verify the number of hours a driver was on the road. The Secretary has delegated that responsibility to the FMCSA. 49 C.F.R. s 1.73.1 Pursuant to Part 385 of its 1 Motor carriers were initially regulated by the Interstate Com merce Commission. To ensure that truck drivers are awake and alert on the road. Was created by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. We will refer to both the FMCSA and its predecessor agencies as the FMCSA. 2 Although </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041175p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> NJ 08002 Attorneys for Appellant Judge Chertoff heard oral argument in this case but resigned before this opinion was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Wedgewood argues that it is exempt from FDA inspection under provisions of the Food. Wedgewood also contends that it was denied procedural due process. We hold that Wedgewood was not exempt from FDA inspection under the FDCA. We will affirm the decision of the District Court. I. Background Wedgewood is a pharmacy specializing in compounding drugs used for treating humans and animals. Drug compounding is a process by which a pharmacist or doctor combines. Compounding is typically used to prepare medications that are not commercially available. Such as medication for a patient who is allergic to an ingredient in a massproduced product. It is a traditional component of the practice of pharmacy. Is taught as part of the standard curriculum at most pharmacy schools . . . . Drug compounding is frequently regulated by states </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/32EAEE29F5DC76ED8825733300553778/$file/0555710.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Then promptly moved to dismiss the action on the basis that Cedars Sinai's claims were preempted. Finding that Cedars Sinai's claims were preempted by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-9508.htm">99-9508 -- ARAPAHOE COUNTY PUBLIC AIRPORT AUTHORITY V. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION -- 03/09/2001<BR></A><BR> Not the least of which is the decision is incompatible with an earlier opinion issued by the Colorado Supreme Court. Which is located just south of Denver. Operations at the airport historically have consisted of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/94FCAED573143C4B88256E5A00707BDE/$file/9936173.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 is amended as follows: 1. Second paragraph: Replace sentence reading: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0936p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On appeal we consider three questions: (1) whether Reschini's appeal is moot. (3) if jurisdiction in the district court is not precluded. Whether dismissal of this suit was nevertheless required on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cognizable cause of action. Depositors in a federally chartered mutual savings association are. [fn1] notwithstanding that the proprietary interest of a depositor member in a mutual savings association is a chimera. It is ownership in name only. A special meeting of Association members was held. The conversion plan was approved by the members. The proposed conversion was pending before the OTS but had not yet been approved. Or set aside the order of the OTS Director approving the proposed conversion.[fn3] We are. At pains to point out that the petition for review ¾ an invocation of this court's appellate authority with respect to certain decisions of the OTS Director ¾ has not yet been briefed and argued and is not the subject of this opinion. We address the contention of the Association and France that this appeal is moot because the special meeting that Reschini sought to enjoin has already occurred and the Association has already converted to a Pennsylvania chartered savings bank. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-3013.html">HOWARD STEARN V. DEPT. OF NAVY<BR></A><BR> For respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3067.html">LOUIS D. HALL, SR., V. DEPT OF THE TREASURY<BR></A><BR> Argued for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1118a.html">DARRELL ANDREWS TRUCKING V. FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY<BR></A><BR> III argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210333.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to address two key issues: (1) the effect of the federal rule upon state antitrust law and (2) whether the exem ption extends beyond antitrust prosecutions into the realm of mere investigations. This holding is based upon the Fourth Amendment4 and state law rather than the antitrust exemption. Ct. at 2112 (stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-2403.man.html">GULF POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES (9/9/1999, NO. 98-2403)<BR></A><BR> Florida Power Corp. are electric utility companies who brought suit against the United States and the Federal Communications Commission seeking a declaration that the 1996 amendment to the Pole Attachment Act. Is facially unconstitutional because it effects a taking of their property without an adequate process for securing just compensation. Rights of way which are used to supply electricity to consumers. Power lines are strung across public and private lands and millions of poles support those lines.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5367a.html">AMAX LAND COMPANY V. QUARTERMAN CYNTHIA<BR></A><BR> With him on the <p> briefs were <i>Lois J. <i>Glenn S. <p> Benson</i> were on the brief for <i>amicus curiae</i> National Mining <p> Association.<p> <p> Before: Silberman. Was interpreted by <p> MMS in the payment order to allow that higher rate to <p> fluctuate from month to month and to authorize the assess <p> ment of compound interest (<i>i.e.</i>. The <p> district court concluded the regulation was <i>ultra vires</i> insofar <p> as it established the higher rate. Are most sensibly interpreted to preclude <p> that practice as well.<p> <p> <b>I.</b> <p> <p> <b>A.</b> <p> <p> Under the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (MLLA) and <p> other statutes. Of which <p> 50% is disbursed to the state in which the land is located (90% <p> in the case of Alaska). 30 U.S.C. 191 (1994). The entirety is then conveyed to <p> the Indians. The size of the royalty <p> payments is determined by statutory formulae. If <p> the dispute is resolved favorably to MMS after the due date. The lessee will be late on <p> part of its royalty payment obligation to fully compensate <p> MMS and the states or Indians. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></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-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-9577.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Teshai Hogos Tsegay was born in 1954 in a region of Ethiopia that later became part of the country of Eritrea. We do not have jurisdiction to review the merits of the IJ's decision. Even though we do not have jurisdiction to review the merits of her appeal? Holding that we have no authority to hear Tsegay's appeal. I. BACKGROUND Tsegay is a native Ethiopian who converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses religion as a young adult. She actively practiced her religion without persecution under the Ethiopian regime and was even able to convert some of her relatives to her faith. She was held in jail for three months. We will refer throughout this opinion to the more recent codification. <hr> K:\Clerk\opinion\DOC RCVD\029577.wpd captors verbally harassed her and attempted to convince her to forsake her faith. She was only released after her nephew. Whichever is later. 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B). She was granted a second hearing on her request for relief from removal. Its functions were transferred to the U.S. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0151p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While he was a tenant at the Jeffries Homes public housing project in Detroit. Is based on federal rights under the same statutes and regulations as described in Count I. Was diagnosed with lead poisoning at the age of two. Plaintiff's brief on appeal is devoid of any argument pertaining to an appeal from the June 21. This portion of the appeal is therefore deemed abandoned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A545AF944B44A049882573410049B369/$file/0374139.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Circuit Judge: This is another in a series of cases arising out of the energy crisis that occurred in California and other western states in 2000 and 2001. We are asked to review the decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/021979P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that District Deputy Comptroller John Bodnar is entitled to qualified immunity regarding his action in approving Mr. That all defendants are entitled to absolute immunity regarding the other regulatory actions challenged in the amended complaint. Northwest National Bank was a distressed bank operating in Gravette. None of which was based on a comprehensive examination of the actual loan files. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-7026.html">PATRICK J. GRIFFIN V. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2445.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-1057a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1003a.html">GRAND CANYON AIR V. FAA<BR></A><BR> Kidney</i> </p> <p>and <i>Robert Wiygul</i> were on the briefs.</p> <p><i>E. Cole</i> were on the briefs.</p> <p><i>Jill E. Grinspoon</i> was on the </p> <p>briefs.</p> <p><i>Eliot R. With whom <i>John E. </p> <p>Putnam</i> and <i>Stacie Brown</i> were on the briefs.</p> <p><i>Ronald M. Were on the brief. <i>Anne S. Kidney </i>and <i>Robert Wi </p> <p>ygul</i> were on the brief for intervenors Grand Canyon Trust. Grinspoon</i> were on the brief </p> <p>for intervenor Hualapai Indian Tribe. </p> <p><i>John E. Cutler </i>and<i> Stacie Brown</i> were </p> <p>on the brief for intervenors Clark County Department of </p> <p>Aviation. We do so not because we </p> <p>necessarily believe the rule is ". Because many of petitioners' attacks </p> <p>are not yet ripe in light of the phased nature of the FAA's </p> <p>proposed solution to the problem of aircraft noise.</p> <p><b>I</b> </p> <p>The rule now before the court has a tortuous and complex </p> <p>history. We recount only so much </p> <p>of that history as is necessary to aid in our discussion.</p> <p><b>A</b> </p> <p>In June 1987. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EDB288C254B386D6882572DF00003A7A/$file/0530590.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is secured to them. At issue in this appeal is whether the Government's basis for maintaining a CCTA prosecution against the Smiskins their alleged failure to comply with the State of Washington's requirement that individuals give notice to state officials prior to transporting unstamped cigarettes within the State violated the Right to Travel provision of the Yakama Treaty. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Background Defendants Kato and Harry Smiskin are members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2F2EFC35C3CDFF70882571CA007F9587/$file/0355601.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/63CA5B217C565EEB88256DA3007BF83A/$file/0215220.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They also claim that the ordinances violate their Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural due process and equal protection and are unconstitutionally vague. Associated with many hotels that were poorly maintained. The terms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-2403.man.html">GULF POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES (9/9/1999, NO. 98-2403)<BR></A><BR> Florida Power Corp. are electric utility companies who brought suit against the United States and the Federal Communications Commission seeking a declaration that the 1996 amendment to the Pole Attachment Act. Is facially unconstitutional because it effects a taking of their property without an adequate process for securing just compensation. Rights of way which are used to supply electricity to consumers. Power lines are strung across public and private lands and millions of poles support those lines.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/97-1003a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kidney and Robert Wiygul were on the briefs. Cole were on the briefs. Grinspoon was on the briefs. Putnam and Stacie Brown were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Kidney and Robert Wi ygul were on the brief for intervenors Grand Canyon Trust. Grinspoon were on the brief for intervenor Hualapai Indian Tribe. Cutler and Stacie Brown were on the brief for intervenors Clark County Department of Aviation. We do so not because we necessarily believe the rule is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041782p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/98-5367a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Lois J. Benson were on the brief for amicus curiae National Mining Association. Was interpreted by MMS in the payment order to allow that higher rate to fluctuate from month to month and to authorize the assess ment of compound interest (i.e. The district court concluded the regulation was ultra vires insofar as it established the higher rate. Are most sensibly interpreted to preclude that practice as well. Of which 50% is disbursed to the state in which the land is located (90% in the case of Alaska). 30 U.S.C. s 191 (1994). The entirety is then conveyed to the Indians. The size of the royalty payments is determined by statutory formulae. If the dispute is resolved favorably to MMS after the due date. The lessee will be late on part of its royalty payment obligation to fully compensate MMS and the states or Indians. The lessee would have to remit the late portion plus interest on that amount. If the lessee were to pay the full amount demand ed by the agency prior to appeal and subsequently win the appeal (hence making an overpayment). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></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-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1002a.html">NATIONAL WHISTLEBLOWER CENTER V. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION<BR></A><BR> With </P> <P>him on the briefs was David K. Argued the cause for respondent. </P> <P>With her on the brief were Karen D. Hamlin were on the brief </P> <P>for intervenor.</P> <P> Before: Edwards. The NRC affirmed the decision. </P> <P>The NRC subsequently dismissed Whistleblower's petition </P> <P>when Whistleblower failed to file contentions within the </P> <P>NRC's deadline.</P> <P> </P> <P> * Judge Williams' dissent will be filed at a later date.</P> <P> . </P> <P> Because we conclude that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7DC54008057F5E7388256E5A00707D70/$file/9936035.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paige is substituted for his predecessor. We are asked to interpret a difficult contract and attempt to devine what the Congress meant in portions of the Higher Education Act (Act). We suppose the complexity of the case is demonstrated by the fact that both parties appeal from the judgment of the district court. Secretary) argue that the district court erred both in holding that the Secretary was in breach of his obligations to the Student Loan Fund of Idaho. We have jurisdiction of the timely filed appeal and cross appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. SLFI is a private non profit corporation that began in the late 1970s to function as a guaranty agency under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (Loan Program). The ultimate insurer of the loans is. A State or private nonprofit organization is first required to contract with the Secretary. Four of the five agreements entered into between SLFI and the Secretary provide that SLFI is to comply with the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. All of the agreements state that they are to be interpreted in the light of the Act and the regulations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-7049.html">COLLARO V. WEST<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA0MTItY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-0412-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must decide whether Section 360k(a) preempts common law tort claims regarding medical devices that have entered the market pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1996/96a1396p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants claim that the Secretary's waiver was invalid and improper. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the matter is plenary. STATUTORY BACKGROUND AFDC is a joint federal and state program established under Title IV A of the Social Security Act. To needy dependent children and the parents or relatives with whom they are living . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2667T.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that after the Federal Communications Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2667.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that AT&T overcharged its customers for contributions to the federal * This opinion was originally released in typescript. 2 No. 02 2667 Universal Services Fund. Boomer argued that the arbitration clause was unconscionable under Illinois law and he sought a declaratory judgment accordingly. Arguing that Boomer's state law challenge to the terms and conditions of the CSA is preempted by the Federal Communications Act of 1934. Boomer is therefore bound by the CSA's arbitration clause. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/99-5028a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Philip R. With him on the brief were Jack D. Because we agree with the district court that the FDIC's interpretation of its governing statute is a reasonable one entitled to Chevron deference. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D26EC0556C9E71F188256B170074A0D4/$file/9936035.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paige is substituted for his predecessor. We are asked to interpret a difficult contract and attempt to devine what the Congress meant in portions of the Higher Education Act (Act). We suppose the complexity of the case is demonstrated by the fact that both parties appeal from the judgment of the district court. Secretary) argue that the district court erred both in holding that the Secretary was in breach of his obligations to the Student Loan Fund of Idaho. We have jurisdiction of the timely filed appeal and cross appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. SLFI is a private non profit corporation that began in the late 1970s to function as a guaranty agency under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (Loan Program). The ultimate insurer of the loans is. A State or private nonprofit organization is first required to contract with the Secretary. Four of the five agreements entered into between SLFI and the Secretary provide that SLFI is to comply with the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. All of the agreements state that they are to be interpreted in the light of the Act and the regulations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/99-2344.htm">99-2344 -- SOUTHWEST AIR AMBULANCE INC. V. CITY OF LAS CRUCES -- 10/16/2001<BR></A><BR> John Richardson is the president of Southwest. Which is owned and operated by the City of Las Cruces (the City). <p> On June 1. Are prohibited from offering any commercial service to the public upon or within the boundaries of the Airport. <p> <u>Id.</u> at </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/64A7158120ECBBC588256E7E007CA35B/$file/0271248.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Settlement of O'Neil's benefit claim is governed by Section 8(i) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6EAA045EAE1C0FA88256C390053D8DE/$file/0116672.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court denied the Governor's motion to dismiss on the ground that the compacting tribes were indispensable parties. Was an unlawful delegation of legislative power without sufficient standards for its exercise. A.R.S. § 5 601 did not authorize the Governor to negotiate compacts for most casino type games because such games were prohibited by state law. The district court accordingly enjoined the GovThe State of Arizona and certain other state or local officers were also named as defendants. Officers other than the Governor are considered to be nominal defendants. We vacate the district court's judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the action because we conclude that the compacting tribes were indispensable parties with sovereign immunity from suit. Background Because the question whether a party is indispensable </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5103.html">ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel were <u>Thomas A. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Margaret Breinholt</u>. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Jason C. Claiming that United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) regulations that restricted egg sales from and imposed other requirements on farms that tested positive for the presence of <span style='mso bidi font style:italic'>salmonella</span> bacteria effected a taking requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The trial court held that Rose Acre was entitled to compensation for a taking of the eggs affected by the regulations. Line height:200%'><span style='mso bidi font family:Arial'>BACKGROUND<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%'><span style='mso bidi font family: Arial'>I.<span style='mso tab coun </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ABF4196169B4641388256B9C004D7417/$file/9936035.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paige is substituted for his predecessor. Is hereby amended as follows: Page 16395. That the regulations were contrary to Congress's intent and that these funds from a separate. Are federal reserve fund assets. Was inconsistent with Congressional intent and the underlying purposes of the HEA and that these funds from a 5565 separate. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. We are asked to interpret a difficult contract and attempt to devine what the Congress meant in portions of the Higher Education Act (Act). We suppose the complexity of the case is demonstrated by the fact that both parties appeal from the judgment of the district court. Secretary) argue that the district court erred both in holding that the Secretary was in breach of his obligations to the Student Loan Fund of Idaho. We have jurisdiction of the timely filed appeal and cross appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. SLFI is a private non profit corporation that began in the late 1970s to function as a guaranty agency under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (Loan Program). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/12/963660P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Secretary concedes that Rapid Robert's was the prevailing party in the litigation on the merits. Argues the district court erred in holding that the Department's position was not substantially justified. Which was enacted June 27. Were actually promulgated on October 21. The final regulations were eventually promulgated three years later on March 4. Rapid Robert's argued that the Secretary's decision was unlawful because the Department of Labor implemented the controlling interim regulations without notice or the opportunity for public comment in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The amount assessed for violation of 29 U.S.C. § 2006(d) was reduced to $500 for each of eight incidents in which the notices provided to employees did not comply with the content requirements set forth in § 2006(d)(4). The ALJ assessed $1000 for each of seven incidents in which the notices not only contained insufficient content but also were not provided to employees at least forty eight hours before testing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A1BC4AC7A3CC2CE58825728900823407/$file/0455838.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are asked to determine whether and if so. Under what circumstances a criminal defendant's retirement benefits are available as a source of funds to compensate crime victims. Underlying each statute is a weighty policy determination: MVRA rests on the recognition that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944323.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As they are partners in South Florida Cogeneration Associates. Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment by the district court. 1 Two questions are presented: first. Whether a public utility is immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine of Parker v. The denial of a motion for summary judgment under the state action immunity doctrine is immediately appealable under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule. The appeals were then consolidated by order of this court as they both involve the same parties and the same issues. Are taken from the same summary judgment order. 1 * 63 S.Ct. 307. Whether lobbying of a county legislative body by the utility is protected from antitrust liability under the Noerr/Pennington doctrine. The district court found that the utility was not entitled to immunity from antitrust sanctions for its actions. The denial by the district court of the utility's Cogeneration is the production of electricity and useful thermal energy at a single facility. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED4EEB8B572112F288256ED100749A46/$file/0315066.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Proposed increases exceeding this amount are subject to administrative review. The City was required to place the question of repealing the 1979 Ordinance on the ballot for November 1998. A lawful space vacancy is defined as follows: A vacancy of the mobilehome space occurring because of the termination of the tenancy of the affected mobilehome (1) CASHMAN v. CITY OF COTATI 9343 Vacancy control prevents mobilehome park owners from charging a new base rent or increasing the existing rent for a mobilehome space when ownership of a mobilehome coach is transferred and the coach remains in place. The stated purpose of Ordinance No. 680 is to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0196p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Believing that the written record was sufficient to adjudicate the matter. It was thus improper not to hold an in person evidentiary hearing. Is periodically surveyed by the CMS in order to assure compliance with Medicare and Medicaid regulations. Were observed lying on their beds without these protectors. Crestview failed to ensure that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/007665.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) & 2253. I Welch is a citizen of Panama who has been a permanent legal resident in the United States since he was ten years of age. Siblings and son are United States citizens. Welch served in the United States Navy and Naval Reserve for six years and was honorably discharged in 1994. While Welch was in State custody. The DOJ asserted that Welch was deportable pursuant to two subsections of former section 241 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act based on his State felony convictions. Id. § 1251 (a)(2)(C) (authorizing deportation for conviction for unlawfully possessing or carrying firearm).2 Soon after Welch was released from State custody. An immigration judge ordered Welch removed to Panama pursuant to former section 1 The terms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2NDFfYW1vcG4ucGRm/03-7641_amopn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Third party payor organizations that provide medical benefits for their members which are used to purchase the drug. The plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint based on its conclusion that the settlement agreement was not a violation of antitrust law and that the plaintiffs did not suffer antitrust injury as a result of the alleged violation. Arising out of circumstances surrounding a lawsuit in which a drug manufacturer alleged that its patent for the drug tamoxifen citrate ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-1342a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Zoll were on the joint brief. Circuit Judge: The Military Toxics Project seeks review of a final rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency establishing the circumstances in which military munitions are deemed hazardous waste for purposes of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/96-8147.man.html">TEPER V. MILLER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Teper v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Officials of the State of Georgia appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of O.C.G.A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/57987D956468797888256EE800581847/$file/0335279.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a record review case in which the Appellants. This case will bear on how the USFWS conducts its duties under the ESA in light of the comprehensive Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) that was implemented. The agency contemplating the action (the action agency) must consult with the consulting agency1 to ensure that the federal action is not likely to jeopardize </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/96-8147.man.html">TEPER V. MILLER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Teper v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Officials of the State of Georgia appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of O.C.G.A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></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-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-4188.htm">02-4188 -- BOSWELL V. SKYWEST AIRLINES INC. -- 03/15/2004<BR></A><BR> She was able to breath for an hour or two at a time without supplemental oxygen. Boswell was required to fly the Skywest route between St. The court acknowledged that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/89B1D6A9A0A8096F882572FF0081653B/$file/0457134.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The named plaintiffs in this case (whom we will call </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1525.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 9. He was injured on May 7. Was at one time C & M's workers' compensation insurer. No compensation payments were made. Was adjudicated bankrupt. Armistead resumed his quest for benefits by seeking a Commission determination that Travelers was liable on the award because it had failed to send a prior notice of the cancellation to C & M. The current law is parallel to the former law. While these motions were pending before the Commission. There was a rub. Its very existence was dubious.2 The district judge 2. Is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2721.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murray</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C0063DA309C84ED4882571BC007DDBC4/$file/0416125.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The proposed expansion was to be located at Newmont's South Operations Area Project. Which was approved in 1993. The expansion was to be known as the South Operations Area Project Amendment (Amended South Project) and was estimated to result in a total additional disturbance of 1. 839 of which are public. Amended South Project was intended to deepen the existing Gold Quarry Mine. Newmont would have to post further phased bonds before going ahead with other activities. Which like the Amended South Project was submitted to the Elko Field Office. The proposal was estimated to result in a disturbance of 486 acres of land. 453 of which are public. Refractory ore produced from Leeville was to be hauled by truck and processed at an existing mill located at the South Operations Area. The Bureau determined that the Leeville proposal could potentially have a significant environmental impact and pre 8626 GREAT BASIN MINE WATCH v. The April 2000 Cumulative Impacts Analysis was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1031a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Jennifer N. With her on the brief was Dennis Lane. Krieger were on the brief for intervenors Columbia Gulf Transmission Corporation and Columbia Gulf Transmission Company. Because FERC's decision to settle is committed to the agency's nonreviewable discretion under Heckler v. FERC discovered that the available capacity on one of Columbia's pipelines was lower than the level at which it had been certificated. FERC suspected that the decline in the pipeline's capacity was due to Columbia's failure to re place deteriorated compressor units. The centerpiece remedy was the requirement that Columbia conduct a 30 day </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/83DD75F5841659F188256ED7004B7170/$file/0215113.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was disbarred from the practice of law before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(b)(1)(A). 2004 order and opinion is amended as follows: The two paragraphs on slip op. 4046 47 that read: 9592 GADDA v. Respondent shall file notices of withdrawal in all cases pending in this court in which he is counsel of record. R. 46 2(g). are deleted. Respondent Gadda shall file notices of withdrawal in all cases pending in this court in which he is listed as counsel of record as of June 1. Gadda's motion is denied. Failure to comply with this order within the time permitted will result in the imposition of monetary sanctions of not less than $1. The other proceeding is a disciplinary action initiated by this court after we received notice of Gadda's suspension from practice by the State Bar Court. Gadda argues that any reciprocal discipline imposed by the BIA or by this court based on the State Bar Court's suspension order is invalid because the Supreme Court of California GADDA v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ADB50EE10F052FC488256C4B007B949E/$file/0155032.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5009a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gaudio were on brief. Fitzpatrick were on brief for amici curiae Honorable Donald A. Were on brief. Fox was on brief for appellees. Were on brief for amici curiae States of New York and New Mexico. Are cognizable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5034.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Everett C. With him on the brief were Peter D. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a takings case. The United States and the plaintiffs have both appealed from that judgment. recalculation of damages. I A The plaintiffs are four owners of rental property in Los Angeles. When a large number of the mortgages were nearing the 20year mark. Was a temporary measure. When we were presented with the question whether ELIHPA and LIHPRHA had caused the plaintiffs to suffer a compensable temporary regulatory taking under the test established by the Supreme Court in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. Would have applied to their property and limited the rent that they could have charged tenants after leaving the federal program. Holding that it was barred by this court's mandate and by the doctrine of law of the case from entertaining that contention. The court held that LARSO would not have reduced the amount of the award because it was expressly preempted by the preemption provision of LIHPRHA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199908/98-1305a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Richard E. Moline were on the briefs for appellant Freedom of Expression Foundation. With him on the brief were Frank W. Assistant Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief was Gigi B. Albert were on the brief for amicus curiae Safe Energy Communication Council. Petitioners1 maintain that the rules are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1133.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Kuchta & Brinker were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. The complaint also claimed that Penobscot was entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46101. I BACKGROUND Penobscot is a tenant leasing space at Knox County Regional Airport. It is a fixed base operator (FBO) at the airport. The ROD also found that Penobscot was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing in this case. II Standard of Review The applicable standard of review for FAA action is provided by the Federal Aviation Act and. These statutes require us to apply different standards of review depending upon what type of determination we are reviewing. We review the FAA's findings of fact to determine whether they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043399p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1031a.html">BALT GAS ELEC CO V. FERC<BR></A><BR> Lesch argued the cause for petitioners.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0359p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-5181a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McGrew was on the briefs. Were on the brief. When OTS determines that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1305a.html">RADIO TV NEWS DIR V. FCC<BR></A><BR> With him <p> on the briefs were <i>Richard E. Moline</i> were on the <p> briefs for appellant Freedom of Expression Foundation. Argued the cause for respondents. <p> With him on the brief were <i>Frank W. Assistant <p> Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief was <i>Gigi B. Albert</i> were on the brief <p> for amicus curiae Safe Energy Communication Council.<p> <p> Before: Edwards. Petitioners1 maintain that the rules are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/06-1034a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Joel V. With him on the brief was Bridget M. The interest income is susceptible to tax in both the United States and the foreign state. Where the relevant tax rate in the U.S. was 50% and in the foreign country was 25% with a 10% refund. Were the foreign rate 50% with no refund. Thus the two countries are on a see saw: When one country's tax revenue goes up. Or rather this iteration of this case (for it is the third time we have heard an appeal from the Tax Court concerning the same transaction). Is a peculiar elaboration of these simple principles.1 During the 1970s and early 1980s. In an The previous iterations of this case are. Becoming a middleman on the old loans (paying the creditors what was owed to them from the original borrowers and in turn receiving payments from the original borrowers) and. This appeal is about the U.S. tax treatment of that $139. We will refer to appellant as PNC even when speaking of the Riggs I through V period. 4 First. PNC's loans to the Central Bank were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0432p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Denko argues that it was an abuse of discretion for the IJ not to reopen removal proceedings when Denko introduced evidence that her failure to attend her second master calendar hearing resulted from her attorney's ineffective assistance of counsel and not from any decision on Denko's part to abandon her request for asylum. Violates established administrative law because it is inconsistent with other provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3257.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. I. BACKGROUND Busby was married to Benny L. The administrative judge held instead that OPM correctly terminated Busby's survivor annuity benefits because Busby remarried before age fifty five and was not married to her first husband for at least thirty years. We have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of the Board under 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (a)(9). Her threshold argument is based upon the Board's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0067p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Francis's HB SNF is relevant for purposes of this appeal. Francis's HB SNF is to rehabilitate. A patient's total costs are less than they would be at other facilities. Closer analysis reveals that the PRM rule is not analogous to the two tier system. An HB SNF that spends $100 to provide routine services and anywhere from $1 to $20 on atypical services will receive no reimbursement at all for its atypical service costs. These expenditures are arbitrarily deemed to be 100% inefficient or. Are subjected to a 100% </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1098a.html">LA ENGY & POWER AUTH V. FERC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/98-1534a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief for amicus curiae. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2006.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1997 is corrected as follows: On the cover sheet. Bart Totten and Adler Pollock & Sheehan Incorporated were on brief for appellant. With whom the Rhode Island Protection and Advocacy System was on brief for appellee. I. The essential facts are not in dispute. Is entitled to receive special educational services under the IDEA. She was entitled to 230 days of special education services per year under the Rhode Island Board of Regents' Regulations Governing the Special Education of Children with Disabilities (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968147.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Officials of the State of Georgia appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of O.C.G.A. § 21 5 35 to prohibit a member of the General Assembly from accepting contributions for a campaign for federal office while the General Assembly is in session. Concluding that the Georgia statute is preempted by the Federal Election Campaign Act. I. Doug Teper is a member of the Georgia General Assembly who is contemplating a campaign for federal office. Teper's coplaintiffs are potential contributors to his federal campaign. Teper is precluded by a provision of the Georgia Ethics in Government Act. The Supreme Court has recognized that often in cases challenging rules governing elections there is not sufficient time between the filing of the complaint and the election to obtain judicial resolution of the controversy before the election. He would have been seriously disadvantaged relative to other federal candidates who are not state officials. He might have been faced with the dilemma of resigning from state office or foregoing his federal campaign. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031085p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Sejid Smriko was a lawful permanent resident of the United States for less than five years when he committed a crime involving moral turpitude that. Smriko was admitted to the United States. None of which were met here. Conclude that his view of refugee status­that it can only be terminated pursuant to specific enumerated grounds contained in the INA­is consistent with the text and some of the legislative history of the INA. We then examine Smriko's contention that his case was improperly subjected to the BIA's affirmance without opinion process. This agency action deprived us of a Board interpretation of the INA that we believe the applicable agency regulations intended us to have before addressing the merits of Smriko's petition. We will grant the petition for review and remand so that the BIA may exercise its expertise and address Smriko's proposed reading of the INA. I. The facts before us are neither complicated. Smriko is a native and citizen of Bosnia Herzegovina who was admitted to the United States as a refugee on October 20. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></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-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6002.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that Oklahoma is not acting contrary to Congressional intent. I Reames is a 51 year old disabled inhabitant of an Oklahoma nursing home whose only income is from monthly Social Security Disability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8D7E9174FBB65B488256E68007C56C1/$file/0215113.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The other proceeding is a disciplinary action initiated by this court after we received notice of Gadda's suspension from practice by the State Bar Court. Gadda argues that any reciprocal discipline imposed by the BIA or by this court based on the State Bar Court's suspension order is invalid because the Supreme Court of California lacked jurisdiction to discipline him. I Gadda was admitted to the California State Bar in 1975. He was admitted to practice law and became a member of the bar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He was also admitted to practice before the GADDA v. ASHCROFT 4031 Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2483.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ledbetter were on brief. Ltd. were on brief. Physical skills are a passport to college admissions and scholarships. Are invaluable in attaining career and life successes in and out of professional sports. The highway of opportunity runs in both directions. 1The individual defendants are. Each is sued in his official capacity. We discuss this appeal as if Brown was the sole defendant and appellant. Offering students the opportunity to partake of sports that are not financially self sustaining. Brown will never be confused with Notre Dame or the more muscular members of the Big Ten. Women are a relatively inconspicuous part of the storied athletic past. Respectively. 3 The absence of women's athletics at Brown was. Brown promptly upgraded Pembroke's rather primitive athletic offerings so that by 1977 there were fourteen women's varsity teams. Was in a financial bind. Many schools with varsity squads are reluctant to compete against club teams. 441 U.S. at 687 n.8 (holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to a Title IX suit). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/91-1288a.html">BLUESTONE ENGY DSGN V. FERC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/95-6000.html">KELLEY V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> Were on the brief for amici curiae. Was unconstitutional. I. Section 601 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 was enacted by the 103rd Congress. Was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Or service of an air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier through common controlling ownership when such carrier is transporting property by aircraft or by motor vehicle (whether or not such property has had or will have a prior or subsequent air movement). Or provision is no more burdensome than compliance with. Which was relied upon by the district court but was not cited in plaintiffs' complaint. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is not always applicable to suits filed against federal entities or officials. The doctrine does not apply in such cases because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/021561P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Minneapolis Community Development Agency (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/05-1188a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Charles H. With him on the brief were Peter D. With her on the brief were Adam C. This legislation required the Secretary of Transportation to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C86BFC5E1BE27B288256E3D005DBD83/$file/0256735.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: 1. Replace the second sentence with: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3064.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Affirming the decision of the Department of the Interior that Lengerich's oral requests for firefighter annuity retirement credit under the Civil Service Retirement System ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/00-14763.opn.html">ALABAMA POWER CO. V. F.C.C. (11/14/2002, NO. 00-14763)<BR></A><BR> If the parties are unable to agree on the price. The petitioners are using this case as a vehicle to mount a challenge to the rate methodology set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 224(d)<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0194p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * Memp his Aero C orpo ration is the predec essor to AM R Co mbs. This opinion will collectively refer to these corporations as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2107.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 36. Line 9: change </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200007/99-1383a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Eric R. With her on the brief were David W. NRDC argues that the Commission's regulation is inconsistent with the text and legislative history of the statute. It further contends that the regulation is improper because it fails to provide procedural safeguards necessary to facilitate effective relief in the event that a meeting is improperly closed to the public. We are unable to accept NRDC's first argument because the Commission has done nothing more than adopt. We are unable to accept the second argu ment because it conflicts with the Court's injunction against imposing non statutory procedural requirements on agency decisionmaking. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/00-14763.opn.html">ALABAMA POWER CO. V. F.C.C. (11/14/2002, NO. 00-14763)<BR></A><BR> If the parties are unable to agree on the price. The petitioners are using this case as a vehicle to mount a challenge to the rate methodology set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 224(d)<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></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-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/15341DC0D6C517F688256BF40072A0AC/$file/0117023.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are various insurance companies and a trade association of insurance companies. The main question for decision is this: May California constitutionally require the disclosure of insurance claims related information by an insurance company that is licensed to do business in California even though the required information may be in the hands of a related entity that is located in a foreign country? Requires any insurer doing business in California that sold insurance policies to persons in Europe that were in effect between the years 1920 and 1945 (Holocaust era policies) to file certain information about those policies with the Commissioner.1 Cal. The reporting requirement also applies to insurance companies that do business in California and are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/97-5276a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C237E269BC9D58688256C2F005B2403/$file/0117023.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 9856. Judges Graber and Paez have voted to deny the Plaintiffs' petitions for rehearing en banc. The Plaintiffs' petitions for panel rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The Defendant's petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. Which are various insurance companies and a trade association of insurance companies. The main question for decision is this: May California constitutionally require the disclosure of insurance claims related information by an insurance company that is licensed to do business in California even though the required information may be in the hands of a related entity that is located in a foreign country? Requires any insurer doing business in California that sold insurance policies to persons in Europe that were in effect between the years 1920 and 1945 (Holocaust era policies) to file certain information about those policies with the Commissioner.1 Cal. The reporting requirement also applies to insurance companies that do business in California and are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/98-1027a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were LaJuana S. On the brief were Lois J. Pettit were on the brief for amici curiae American Automobile Manufacturers Association. Landers were on the brief for amici curiae Dott Industries. Was to be in effect through October 1. 1989 the DMRs revealed that water discharged at Outfall 002 contained levels of metals in * This prohibition was to last until 1992. Was extended by statute to 1994 and then by regulation to 2001. GM determined that those levels were the result not of cross connections to the plant's idled operations but of some combination of metals present in the rain and metals leached from the roofs of buildings and from copper gutters. Zinc are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/042309P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe sought to have 91 acres of offreservation land that it had purchased taken into trust. The land is located within the municipal limits of the city of Oacoma. Seeking review of the Secretary's action and contending that 25 U.S.C. § 465 was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The district court concluded that the statute was constitutional. Held that it was without jurisdiction to review the remaining claims and dismissed the case. We concluded that the Department had interpreted its own power too broadly and was exercising that power in an unchecked manner because it had also interpreted the statute as delegating unreviewable discretionary authority to the Secretary. The Secretary of the Interior at the time the land was taken into trust was Bruce Babbitt. The current Secretary is Gale A. A significant loss in state revenue and numerous jurisdictional problems would result if the land were taken into trust. The State again filed suit in federal court to challenge the agency action.4 The suit was delayed for the completion of an environmental assessment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200007/99-5270a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Richard E. On the brief were David W. Arguing that temporary retention of data for at most six months is neces sary to audit the background check system to ensure both its accuracy and privacy. If the firearm dealer is in a state that has elected to serve as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/05-5185a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Elliot J. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Circuit Judge: This Freedom of Information Act appeal is a footnote to the long trade dispute in which the United States and American softwood lumber companies have raised complaints about alleged unfair trade practices by the Canadian Government and Canadian softwood lumber exporters. The Department of Commerce imposed duties on imports of Canadian softwood lumber to the United States (duties that have since been rescinded as a result of the recent bilateral settlement). At issue in this appeal are 17 third party letters that the Department had received from American lumber companies. Also at issue are 51 sets of internal Department notes. The Department has provided Baker Hostetler numerous other softwood lumber related documents that are not at issue on appeal. The firm argues it is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0173p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Page 2 Plaintiffs' action was not ripe in part. Substantive Facts Plaintiffs are landowners along the old Milan Canal in Erie County. LLC were all parties to a prior state court proceeding in which Erie County Metroparks sought a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs possessed no property interest in a 150 foot wide corridor along the old canal. Metroparks claimed to be the valid assignee of an infinite duration leasehold interest in that corridor and was interested in transforming the corridor into a recreational trail. The only lands owned by the Milan Canal Company at the time the Lease was executed lay within the boundaries of the Kneeland Townsend property and the Ebeneser Merry property. Plaintiff Wikel Farms was not a party to the prior state court proceeding. Wikel Farms is currently involved in an appropriation action brought by Erie County Metroparks against Wikel Farms in state court. Which is Metroparks' estimated valuation of the disputed property. That suit is not yet resolved. Was final in September 2002. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0086p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was employed as a Resident Specialist Coordinator (RSC) at NorthWest Community Corrections Center. Early in her employment she learned that she was making less money than a Caucasian male RSC and complained to her boss at a staff meeting. McClain was fired. McClain was fired before the end of her 120 day probationary period. The district court held that McClain was entitled to notice and a hearing prior to her termination under state law but that state law did not create an implied private right of action. (2) her right under Ohio law to due process creates a property interest that is protected by the Federal Constitution. (3) her disparate treatment claims (one for disparate pay and one for termination) should have survived NorthWest's motion for summary judgment. (4) her retaliation claims should have survived NorthWest's motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment was warranted in favor of NorthWest as to McClain's state and federal due process claims. Summary judgment was not warranted on McClain's discrimination claims or her retaliation claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021946.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will. Because the Army Corps is entitled to approve an applicant's project proposal under a less stringent Nationwide Permit regime even if the applicant initially requested a type of individual permit that would have required more rigorous review. Because there was sufficient evidence to support the Army Corps' decision to approve the project. I. Hanover County is located in a rapidly growing area north of Richmond. Because it appears that Henrico County is unwilling to satisfy Hanover County's wastewater treatment needs beyond this contractual limit. They oppose the project and have filed numerous court challenges against it. There are two different methods of obtaining Army Corps clearance for a project. The general permits at issue in this case are all Nationwide Permits (NWPs). Activities falling within the scope of an NWP are automatically authorized without any individualized inquiry. Although preconstruction notification of the Corps is required in some cases. 33 C.F.R. § 330.1(e) (2003). In cases where preconstruction notification is required. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3207_008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Frank Bros. is a construction company with its principal place of business in Janesville. Which were funded by capital from both federal and state agencies through the provisions of the Federal Aid Highway Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></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-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-11385.man.html">COALITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION V. CITY OF ATLANTA (7/27/2000, NO. 99-11385)<BR></A><BR> The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. We AFFIRM the holding of the district court.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC9251E2043F9B1588256E1C0083558B/$file/0256735.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although the goal of California's apprenticeship programs is to promote economic opportunity. Its regulations have caused considerable concern to the employers affiliated with the Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern California. Are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1593.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America were Randolph D. On the brief for Biotechnology Industry Organization were Daniel E. With him on the brief were Linda Singer. With him on the brief was Joshua D. With him on the brief was Matthew H. With him on the brief was Daniel J. This is a pre enforcement challenge to a statute of the District of Columbia. The legislation was adopted after the Council determined that: The excessive prices of prescription drugs in the District of Columbia is threatening the health and welfare of the residents of the District as well as the District government's ability to ensure that all residents receive the health care they need. [I]t is incumbent on the government of the District of Columbia to take action to restrain the excessive prices of prescription drugs. The Council's response to that finding was passage of the challenged legislation. The statutory term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/05-5165a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/datefile/datefile.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> End page heading. > <div align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/690732C04555546188256E5A00707BDF/$file/9956746.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc.'s (Kimmel) complaint on the ground that Kimmel's state law claims are preempted by the Federal Insecticide. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Background Defendant Appellee DowElanco is the manufacturer of Vikane. Vikane is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-2247.htm">98-2247 -- ATKINSON TRADING CO. INC. V. SHIRLEY -- 05/02/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/99-5222.htm">99-5222 -- SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. BROOKS FIBER COMMUNICATIONS OF OKLAHOMA INC. -- 12/13/2000<BR></A><BR> The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is authorized to establish regulations implementing the requirements of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1015.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Replace case number </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-11385.man.html">COALITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION V. CITY OF ATLANTA (7/27/2000, NO. 99-11385)<BR></A><BR> The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. We AFFIRM the holding of the district court.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2444.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Company</SPAN> was on brief for appellant.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C4AE676EA67371D488256A84007CBFA4/$file/9956746.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc.'s (Kimmel) complaint on the ground that Kimmel's state law claims are preempted by the Federal Insecticide. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Background Defendant Appellee DowElanco is the manufacturer of Vikane. Vikane is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-7037.html">RAYMOND GALLEGOS, V. ANTHPNY PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1116p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court did not have an adequate factual basis for determining whether the claimed exemptions applied to the individual documents. We will reverse the order of the district court and remand this matter for further determinations consistent with principles articulated in this opinion. I. Davin is a graduate history student at the University of Pittsburgh in the field of labor history. The Workers Alliance of America ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052336p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court then conducted a six day 1 Although the members of the Board have been sued individually in their official capacities. Yet this apparent simplicity is deceptive. 1344 (6th Cir. 1994) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-6001.html">SCHMELZER V. OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200503/03-1414a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Michael K. Murphy were on the brief for intervenors Central Texas Telephone Cooperative. Evilsizer was on the brief for amicus curiae Hot Springs Telephone Co. in support of petitioners. With him on the brief were R. Daubert were on the brief for intervenors Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. The petitioners argue that the FCC's order is a legislative rule that requires notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The FCC contends that its order is an interpretative rule a rule that merely interprets one of the FCC's previous legislative rules and hence is exempt from APA and RFA requirements. We conclude that the order is a legislative rule because it constitutes a substantive change in a prior rule. We find that the FCC effectively complied with those requirements (notwithstanding its view that it was not required to do so). That any deviations were at most harmless error. There is no dispute. Until that analysis is complete. Are wireline carriers companies that provide telephone service over telephone wires. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214920.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is expressly pre empted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5329a.html">RICHARD DRAKE V. FAA<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause as amicus curiae in support of appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1569.html">TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION NETWORK V. DONALD EVANS<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1526.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. A finding by an Administrative Law Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2NDEgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-7641%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Third party payor organizations that provide medical benefits for their members which are used to purchase the drug. The plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint based on its conclusion that the settlement agreement was not a violation of antitrust law and that the plaintiffs did not suffer antitrust injury as a result of the alleged violation. Arising out of circumstances surrounding a lawsuit in which a drug manufacturer alleged that its patent for the drug tamoxifen citrate ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/03-1020a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A1F54949BF4B57E18825707A004E0DEA/$file/0474204.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Leavitt is substituted for his predecessor. The Administrator rejected the proposed amendment on two alternative grounds: (1) that it was inconsistent with the statutory requirement of efficiency. We conclude that the Administrator's interpretations of the statute and regulation were permissible and deny the petition for review. 13030 ALASKA DEP'T OF HEALTH v. A. BACKGROUND Statutory Framework Medicaid is a cooperative federal state program through which the federal government reimburses states for certain medical expenses incurred on behalf of needy persons. Participation by states is voluntary. Have approved. Was 57.58%. The state is responsible for the balance. The tribal facilities at issue in this case are unique. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(b).1 There are seven such facilities one in Anchorage and six in rural areas. Care and services available under the plan . . . as may be necessary to safeguard against unnecessary utilization of such care and services and to assure that payments are consistent with efficiency. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/07CE58933D0EAE4F88256B930005E367/$file/0017352.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 level programming microinstructions called microcode. 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. Syntek timely appealed. 5250 II 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-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/98-6146.man.html">AM. IRON AND STEEL INST. V. OSHA (8/3/1999, NO. 98-6146)<BR></A><BR> The separate challenges are brought by the American Iron and Steel Institute ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/04-1414a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Cynthia S. With him on the briefs was Wallace F. With him on the briefs were Noel H. With them on the brief was Robert H. With him on the brief were Ilia Levitine and Stephen G. Roby were on the brief for intervenors Wisconsin Public Power Inc. Jr. were on the brief for intervenor Duke Energy Shared Services. Is a nonprofit corporation that controls the transmission of electricity over a grid spanning 15 Midwestern states. Its original tariff was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and went into effect in 2002. Who are electricity sellers in MISO's markets subject to the new tariff's rules and liabilities. Who are electricity buyers under contracts predating the establishment of MISO. Any such rate or charge that is not just and reasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/99-1230a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Ann S. Among these is the power to remove a bank officer from his position and to bar him from further participation in the operations of a federally insured depository institution. The case was forwarded to the FDIC's Board of Directors for a final decision. The principal issue for review is Landry's argument that the